,c..... ^) , H<y^ 



-J 



I F 

•SiSis 







THE CLAIMS 



u 




OF THE 



TABERNACLE CHURCH 



TO BE CONSIDERED 




THE THIRD CHURCH IN SALEM; 



OR, 



THE CHURCH OF 1735. 



"RENDER TO ALL THEIR DUES." 



TED FOR THE TAUEBNACLE CHURCH 



^ 



.Salem ®!)setber ^rrss. 

1847. 



}fCKJ 



^^~^- ^l 



l'Ws)@j 







Book ^ J o j 6- 



THE CLAIMS 



OF THE 



TABERNACLE CHURCH, 



TO BE CONSIDERED 



THE THIRD CHURCH IN SALE 



OR, 



THE CHURCH OF 1735. 



RENDER TO ALL THEIR DUES." 



PRINTED FOR THE T A B E R N A C 1, E C H II R f H 



Salem -©Iisctbcr ^rtss. 
1847. 









b 






THE CHURCH OF 1735, 

PART I. 



In the arrangements for the last celebration of Independ- 
ence in this city, it was agreed that the procession of the 
Sabbath Schools shonld be formed, according to the time of 
the organization of the respective chnrches. A member ot 
the Sonth Churcli Committee objected to the place of the 
Tabernacle School, and claimed it for the school, which he 
liimself in part represented. As soon as the circnmstance 
was made known to some members of the Tabernacle 
Committee, tlie claim was decidedly protested; but with 
the expression of a strong desire, that the difficulty, which 
was so entirely unanticipated, might he adjusted as quietly 
and fraternally as possible. Such was the predommant 
feeling in each of the Committees, that there was a prompt 
acquiescence in the proposal of the General Committee, to 
decide the question by lot. The lot was cast, and in " the 
disposal thereof,'' the Tabernacle School had the appro- 
priate place of the Church of 1735. 

In one or two instances, the claims of the South Church 
to this priority have recently been set forth in such a man- 
ner, that intelligent and disinterested persons, both clergy- 
men and laymen, have expressed much surprise, that on 
the part of the Tabernacle Church no decisive appeal should 
be made to facts and documents. We refer particularly to 
the publication of the Sermon of the respected pastor of the 
South Church, at the " Thirty-Eighth Anniversary of his 
Ordination." In the paragraph, which purports to be an 
outline of the history of the Third Church of 1735, and the 
notes in the Appendix, the Tabernacle Church is presented 
in a relation to the South Church, and with a date of forma- 
tion, which was as new and as unexpected, as if it had 
been stated to be a presbyterian branch of the Howard 
Street 

A venerable member of the Tabernacle Church, who, in 
respect to the subject before us, has "a perfect understand- 
ing of all things from the very first," immediately prepared 
a candid review of that part of the Sermon, to which in the 
sequel we shall ourselves have occasion to direct a more 
special attention. In the judgment of men of the first 



slaiwliiiG: 111 tliis riiy. it is pcrlccily rnncliisivo uLrninst ilu? 
claims »>l" the Soiiili (Jluircli. Due ullowaiice imist of course, 
be initde tor llie pcn'soual l)ias of the writer. But althouizh 
there are two sides to every legitimate question, yet the 
essential truth must be ou one side only. And this may be 
so Tuliy and fairly exhibited, that the conclusion is not to 
be invalidated by any argument on the other side, however 
ingenious or plausible. 

We siiould probably have published this review, if it had 
not been for our unwillingness to appear before the comniii- 
uity, in any mode of controversy with brethren, between 
whom and ourselves there should always be a mutual and 
cordial aim, "to consider one another to provoke (only) 
unto love, and to good works." We also believed, that 
with the public at large, there really is no question in the 
case. And further, it never was supposed, that in any 
contingency there would be a direct collision of the claims 
of the two churches. 

Por these and similar reasons, the work which we now 
undertake, has not been performed at an earlier day. We 
arc still no less unwilling to appear in the attitude of con- 
troversy, and we intend none other 'provocation," tliiin 
that which is scriptural in precept and apostolic by 
example; while we assert our liberty and our duty to es- 
tablish historic fact, and vindicate the rights and proprie- 
ties of our ecclesiastical standin?. 

By formal request of the Tabernacle Church, the pastor 
prepared, at his convenience, a full Report upon the claims 
of the Church, as the true succession or continuation of 
the (Church of 1735.* The pastor of the South Church 
being then absent, there was no further action, until after 
his return. As we wished to "deal kindly and truly," in 
all respects, we proposed to our brethren, that they should 
meet us in a friendly conference, or unite with ns in some 
measure, by which the qu(>stiou between us might be ami- 
cably and effectually settled. 

We were entirely ready and desirous to refer it to mutual 
l>iends, although in our simplicity we had thought, that our 
brethren might be convinced by ourselves alone, that they 
were cherishing an erroneous and imwarrantable claim. — 
We were of the opinion, that not any among them had 
ever thoroughly and fairly investigated its actual founda- 
tion. We could not suppose, that their venerable pastor liad 
himself ever considered it, except as a matter, which, it 
was to be presumed, others had decided. We liad no evi- 
dence, in a word, that the intrinsic merits of the (]uestion 
were at all imderstood, and appreciated. On the contrary, 

' See Appendix A. 



our belief was, that under the influence of tradition and 
imperfect knowledge, much had been taken for granted as 
true or proper, which will bear no candid examination ; 
and that general impressions from a very limited and inad- 
equate attention to the subject, had been allowed the high- 
e8t authority of undoubted fact and indisputable justice. 
What has since transpired, has thoroughly confirmed us in 
our opinion and belief. 

In proposing to our brethren the friendly consultation by 
a Committee, we felt assured, that at least we should per- 
suade them, that we have no other than kind and magnan- 
imous feelings in the action, which we contemplated ; and 
that if we have misjudged our claims, or mistaken the 
mode of appropriate procedure, it is an error in regard to 
Avhich we would open our whole minds and hearts for cor- 
rection and conviction. They very emphatically declined 
our proposal. They could not think it expedient to have 
any conference with us. We then repeated our proposal, 
urging also a few considerations, to show them, that they 
ought not to regard the question, as having been long since 
settled, as they alleged ; and that they ought not, from any 
fear of disturbing "peace, harmony and fellowship," to 
decline a conference^ if a formal and final reference, upon 
the subject. 

They reaffirmed their decision not to meet us. As if taking 
our communication for our argument upon the main ques- 
tion, they returned an elaborate and spirited rejoinder. — 
We have surmised, that it was considered by them as a 
triumphant refutation of our claims. The effect, however, 
was hardly such as may have been anticipated. 

Such a document we had not expected ; although as- 
sured of " no imwillingness, in itself considered, to engage 
in an investigation of the subject." It was not investiga- 
tion that we sought, " in itself considered" but discussion, 
candid, conciliatory and christian, with a view to a set- 
tlement of all disputable matter. Yet as our brethren, 
or those who prevailed as the majority, would not confer 
with us, or accede to any suggestions which implied, that 
by any possibility they may be in an error, it was no small 
satisfaction to us, to obtain so full and so earnest a vindi- 
cation of their cause. It has aided us very materially. 

When it was read to the Tabernacle Church, it was fol- 
lowed by some critical, and perhaps occasionally some 
stringent remarks, upon its statements and reasonings. If 
our object were controversy^ we should certainly have much 
pleasure in reviewing it at full length. 

It could not be expected that we should continue the 
correspondence. No reply, therefore, was sent to the last 



communication of our bretlirrn. li was promptly voted, 
however, tliat the Report of the pastor, previously men- 
tioned, and the Correspondence, with the Remarks, should 
be published. 

On some accounts we should now prefer to carry this 
vote into effect, without any modification. Ihit as wc have 
since had the privilege of seeing ior ourselves the Records 
of the South Church, we lind that the wliole discussion 
may be greatly simplified; and have been persuaded, that 
the object of this vindication can be better accomplished, 
by a diflerent kind and manner of appeal. 

It may be regretted by some, that any appeal like the 
present should be made. Our regret is, that such occasion 
has been given. It was not of our seeking, and wc mis- 
take very much, if any impartial reader will not be entirely 
satisfied, that the occasion is too urgent to be unheeded. 

One single thought is enough. The origin of a church, 
like the birth of an individual, is a fact of time, which in 
cases of law may involve questions of very serious moment. 
In courts of justice and in all legal processes ailecling 
churches, the date of the formation of a church, and other 
dates, like other facts, may be indispensable to appropriate 
procedure. 

Names, too, may be of no small importance. In a 
legacy, for example, bequeathed to the Third Church in 
Salem, it would be a fair question at law, whether the 
South Church or the Ta1)ernacle should receive it. 

Besides, we shall be under the necessity of exposing 
some errors and inaccuracies, which are found in the dis- 
course, published in 1813; from which we are very sure, 
that any one who has a just sense of the value of historic 
truth, will not deem it strange, that we should be unwilling 
any longer to keep silent as we have. And if there be any 
implcasant consequences, the responsibility is not with us. 
We liave waited long, in hope that the necessity of this 
vindication would be superseded. 

The main ([ucstion to be settled is. Which of the two 
Churches in this city, commnnhj called the Tabernacle and 
South Churches, is entitled to be considered the Third 
Church of 173.5 1 The settlement of this question obvi- 
ously determines another, — Which has the chronological 
precedence or jtriori/ij, in relation to the oth/r Churches / 

The South (Jhnrch claims to be the Tiiird Congregational 
Church of Salem. This claim cannot be sustained, unless 
the ( /hurcli can ho identified, as the direct and legitimate 
continuation of the Third Church of 1735. It must be 
that Church, or it caimot be the Third Congregational 
Church. Of the Third Church of 1735, really and moi>t 



truly, the Tabernacle Church claims to be the uninterrupted 
and perpetuated organization. If it did not begin in 1735, 
it never had any beginning. No man is authorized by any 
known facts, to assign any other date. 

The term Third, however, it should be remarked, is not 
properly ?, fixed name. Relatively, like its kindred niimeri- 
ical terms, it should denote the comparative age of a church. 
But it may, or ought to be transferred from one Church to 
another, in a change of circumstances. What is now the 
Second Church in fc^alem, was originally the Fourth. It 
became Second when the original Second and Third in 
ISalem, became First and Second in Danvers. Hence, 
whatever may be said of the presbyterian admixture of 
government in the Third or Tabernacle Church, nnder Dr. 
Whitaker, the numerical term Third is its appropriate, and 
the only appropriate designation oi the time of its origi?i 
or constitution as a Congregational Church. 

But we would state explicitly, that we do not contend 
respecting the name Third Church, or the style " Third 
Congi^egational ChnrchP We object and protest against 
•ivhat is claimed nnder the name^ Third Church. For al- 
most seventy years we have disused, and perhaps it 
should be said, discarded the name altogether. The name 
Tabernacle, which was substituted for it, has become 
known in all the earth. In the kind providence of God, 
the Church has numbered among its pastors, those whose 
praise is in all the churches, and whose memories are a 
priceless treasure, at home and abroad. The name is 
associated in our hearts, and the hearts of thousands else- 
where, with the most endearing and thrilling of all earthly 
remembrances. We should, therefore, as soon think of 
parting with a right arm or with a right eye, as with our 
present ecclesiastical name. 

Let the present issue, then, not be misunderstood. Our 
brethren of the South Church claim the right to call 
themselves Third Church, and also to be considered the 
Third Congregational Church in Salem, as being the origi- 
nal Third Church of 1735. We, on the other hand, claim 
to be none other than that same Third Church. And in 
vindication of our proper ecclesiastical standing and our 
true history, we now call attention to 



THE ORIGIN OF THE TABERNACLE CHURCH. 

The two churches, as at present existing, are both rec- 
ognized in the community, as Congregational, in good and 



8 

regular standing. As organizations, they arc complolf. 
Siip|)oso now a disinterested inquirer wished to dtsterniine 
which of thetn lie himself ouglit to consider the (,'hnrch of 
17:i;"), and by consecjuence which the oldest organization. 
With the Records of both Chiu'ches in his hands, let liini 
first examine those of tlie Tabernacle. 

Tracing back the history of this latter Church from the 
present hour, he Avill come to the period when the Rev. 
Mr. Fisk, the first minister, retired from his pastoral rela- 
tion, retaining in his possession the records of about eight 
years previous. The first date of the existing records is 
February 20, 1743. The book is called the "Book of Re- 
cords of the First Church in Salem." 

Elsewliere it may be learned that the Church, holding 
these records under the name of the First Church, had 
originated in a separation or ejection of the majority of the 
true First Church, by an act of discipline termed the Third 
Way of Communiott. This was in 1735. The minority 
liad remained upon the premises, but were not recognized 
by the majority in their proper ecclesiastical character, 
until 1762. Thus, for twenty-seven years, there were 
nominally two First Churches in Salem. 

All equal division was finally made of the plate and 
other "interest," or property. The name or style First 
Church, was formally and forever relinquished by those, 
who, after consenting to call themselves, " the Church of 
which the Rev. Dudley Leavitt vms late pastor ^^^ voted in 
May 1763, that " this Church be called the Third Church 
of Christ in Sale7n, from this time forxcardP 

It may be added, that although Mr. Fisk was at the head 
of the majority, at the time of the separation, it was found 
necessary to install him in 1736. And such concessions 
were made, about the time of the dissolution of his con- 
nexion with them, that the neighboring churches received 
them into fellowship, and put an end to the disabilities, 
which had been justly imposed upon them in 1735. 

Let an inquirer search the Records, from the first page 
of the first book, through all the 500 pages, as also in the 
second book, and he will see the acts or proceedings of one 
and the same identical.^ orrranised body, in regular and 
unbroken series. He will find that the original covenant 
as a Congregational Church, was never renounced, although 
at the settlement of Dr. Whitaker in 1769, there was an 
unanimous consent, tliat the Church should be governed 
by the pastor and a session of elders, with the right of 
appeal to a Congregational Council, until another Judica- 
ture should be appointed.* He will find also, that five 

• Appendix. 



9 

years afterwards, a majority by an irregular mode of pro- 
ceeding adopted the Boston Presbytery as that Judicature, 
and the Church, for a season, was taken under the watch 
and care of that body. Three months after the connexion 
had begun, a disaffected minority, having maintained a 
controversy with tlie pastor for two years and upwards 
— a contvovcvsy personal^ much more than ecclesiastical — 
during wliicli they had mostly retired from the communion 
of the churcli — were dismissed under direction and by 
authority of the Presbytery. This was in Sept. 1774. 
(See Appendix C.) 

They were thus understood to be, and were, as effectually 
separated from the Third Church, as any individuals were 
ever separated from any church ; and the Third Church as 
it was in 1769, when Dr. Whitaker was settled, remained, 
with the vast majority of the congregation, with the pas- 
tor, the Records, the property and the whole essential or- 
ganization, just as it had been for forty years previous, and 
with no modification of its internal management differing 
from the agreement with Dr. Whiiaker in 1769. To that a- 
greement theseceders who were dismissed, then unanimously 
consented, and were the foremost to carry it intoefiect. And 
those " uneasy brethren" were now, in Sept. 1774, just as 
much dismissed from the Third Churcli, and were so con- 
sidered by the majority, as were the members, who, in 
1802, were dismissed to the Church in Rowley, before they 
were organised as the Branch Church, since called How- 
ard Street. They were of course no longer a part of the 
church, unless as dismissed members, in ordinary cases, 
they may have been regarded as somewhat amenable to 
the church, until formed into a new church, or recognized 
as members of some other church. 

Dr. Whitaker, according to the Records, continued in 
his pastoral relation, until he was removed by an act of 
Council, February, 1784. Mr. Spaulding was his succes- 
sor, in 1785, and the Records contain the proper notice of 
his settlement, as of his predecessors, Messrs. Leavitt and 
Huntington, with Dr. Whitaker, and his successors, Dr. 
Worcester, Mr. Cornehus, Dr. Cleaveland, and the present 
pastor, who was installed, Dec. 3, 1834. These all are 
duly noticed in the Records, as installed or ordained in reg- 
ular succession from Mr. Fisk, and as the pastors of the 
Church of 1735, excepting that Dr. Whitaker was receiv- 
ed, without the usual formalities of clerical installation. 

It was not until after the removal of Dr. Whitaker, in 
1784, that the name Tabernacle happens to occur in the 
Records, as the name of the church. It was introduced 
by no vote or act of the body, and was never afterwards 



10 

so recognized, as was the name Tliird Chuvcli, wliicli it 
liad gradually disjilaced and ultimately superseded. The 
n;yne origiuated J'rom the house of worsiiip, which was 
dedicated in 1777. IJut it neither denoted nor indicated 
any change whatever in the administration of the ( 'liurch ; 
still less any hegimiing, re-organization, or re-ostahlish- 
ment ; and nowhere in the Records can be seen the small- 
est perceptible trace or the faintest intimation, tliat the 
present organization, known in Church and State, as the 
Tahernnclc Churchy was ever dissolved, or had any other 
heginning, than that which is identified with the separation 
from the f^'irst Church, in 173."). No Council was ever 
called, and no minority or majority ever acted for any such 
purpose, as a dissolution or reorganization of the body. 

If such evidence as this he not sufficient to prove the 
identity of the Church, as the continued organization of 
1735, then no Church in the land can prove its identity, be- 
fore a Court of Justice or an Ecclesiastical Council. What- 
ever opinions or pretensions, therefore, may be entertained 
by others, it seems to us that any candid inquirer would 
he entirely persuaded, that if any church in existence has 
the legitimate title to consideration as the Church of 1735, 
subsequently called Third Church, it must be the Taber- 
nacle Churcli alone. 

An anomaly indeed it would l)e, in all history from the 
beginning hitherto, that a Church should have the Jicco?'ds 
of its acts, in rcu;ular order, a whole generation, for exam- 
ple, before it had any being; or that a Church should have, 
as its own, the Records of any other Church ! ! 



ORGANIZATION OF THE SOUTH CHURCH. 

Let the inquirer now take tlie first book of the Records 
of the brethren, who claim for their Church the name and 
the consideration of the Third Church of 1735. He will 
find that the title and style of the Records are in corres- 
pondence with this claim. But he will of course not re- 
gard this as any proof of its being tlie real Third Church ; 
for he will not be likely to forget the name and style of 
Pii'st Church, in the early Tabernacle Records. And lie 
need not be reminded, that the same name or style might 
have continued to the present hour, if there had been no 
higher sense of historic truth and ecclesiastical propriety 
among the members, than prevailed for nearly twenty-sev- 
en years. IJut if it had so been, and wdiether or not the 
First (-'hurch had taken another name, it would obviously 
be an entirely distinct body from the Church of KVil* : and 



11 

have no legitimate title to be called, any more than to bo 
considered, the First Church m Salem. What is wrong at 
the beginning, there is no virtue in the lapse of ages upon 
ages to make right. 

The first page of the Records now in hand, introduces 
us to the Result of a Council, bearing the date at the head, 
Feb. 14—16, 1775. Why it is not simply Feb. 14, does 
not appear. All the transactions and proceedings which 
are recorded under the date Feb. 14 — 16, would seem very 
clearly to have belonged to one day only, and that Feb. 14. 
This is the date of the vote for moderator of the brethren 
themselves, who had called the Council ; and also the 
date of their signatures to the Covenant which they sub- 
scribed, previous to their recognition as a church in reg- 
ular standing. 

When the inquirer has read through the whole record of 
the Result of the Council, with a small part of the page 
following, we should not be surprised, if he should shut 
up the volume with perfect astonishment. We are very 
sure, that he would have occasion to say, that he had nev- 
er seen or imagined the like before. 

The Council, as he perceives, was but a small body, con- 
sisting of four ministers, with the accompanying delegates 
and the delegates also of one other church. Two church- 
es in Bostonhad been invited, but were not represented. 
No church in Salem had part in the Council. 

The members had assembled agreeably to Letters Mis- 
sive , not from the Third Church of Christ in Salem, — but 
from Benjamin Ropes, John Gardner, etc., fourteen in all, 
" representing that the Boston Presbytery, sitting in Sa- 
lem, in September last, had declared them (together with 
many sisters of the church, provided they did not re- 
turn in the time limited, now past,) to be dismissed from 
the Church noio under Dr. Whitaker''s pastoral care, but 
without censure ; and requesting advice and assista7ice in 
a re-establishment of church order ^ And to this part of 
the document, we have no objection to make. 

At an early stage of their proceedings, the Council at- 
tended to some statements concerning the doings of a pre- 
vious Council, which was convened Jan. 10, at the call 
of the same brethren. Some of the members of the first 
Council were evidently a part of the second. And from 
what is said concerning Dr. Whitaker's strictures upon the 
first Letters Missive, of which he had complained as con- 
taining " a wilful misrepresentation of matters," and from 
intimations in regard to an expected or proposed Mutual 
Council, to be agreed upon between the Doctor and "the 
fourteen brethren." it may be inferred very confidently, 



12 

tliat the Council of Jan. 10, dissolved their session, boranso 
of inability to find "light," for the rccogniiion of the 
brethren as the Third Church, or as any church. 

The present Council, however, this of Feb. 14, make 
numerous inquiries, as they say, consult divers papers, and 
conclude to act, according to the request of the Letters 
JMissive. We very strongly suspect, that during ilic inter- 
val between Jan. 10 and Fel). 11, one member of the Coun- 
cil, Rev. Mr. Cleavcland, of Cbcbaceo, who was probably 
of the first Council also, had fully prepared himself for tlie 
emergency, so that there might be no insuperable obstacle 
in the Avay of the contemplated proceedings. He was the 
most skilful and formidable antagonist, that Dr. Wlii taker 
ever had to encounter. 

It requires no very searching analysis of the proceedings 
of the Council, to trace two dillercnt and really incompati- 
ble o])jects as the apparent end in view, and two corres- 
ponding modes of inconsistent operation. The brethren 
doubtless wished to be recognized as the original Third 
Church, and the Council were solicitous to gratify them 
fully in this respect. At the same time, they had no or- 
gnnizat'wn as any cimrch whatever, — accordins: to the 
usages of the churches, \\'\\\\ which they desired to be in fel- 
lowship. They had not only long been absent from the com- 
munion of the Third Church, previous to its being placed 
under the care of the Boston Presbytery, but, for about 
five months, they had also been declared to be dismissed. 

The Cambridge Platform says: — " 1. !<aints by calling 
must have a visible jwlitical union among ihcmselves, or 
else they are not yet a particular church, etc. 2. Particu- 
lar churches cannot be distinguished one from another, 
but by their forms, etc. 3. This form is the visible Cove- 
7ian(, agreement or consent, Avhercby they give up them- 
selves unto the Lord, to the observing of the ordinances of 
Christ together with the same society, which is usually 
called the Chrtreh Covenant,'^ etc. And the " Congrega- 
tional Manual," published during the last year, repeats 
these principles and declares, that " those who are quali- 
fied to be members of a church do not constitnie a church, 
before they are properly organized into a visible body.''"' 

As if fully aware of these principles, the Council pro- 
ceed in such a manner as will secure for the fourteen 
brethren an onxanization. as a Congregational Church, in 
regular standing. 

In the formation of such a church in ihc ordina.^ 
method, evidence is sought of the christian (jualifications 
of the ])ersons who are to be organized. This the Coun- 
cil obtain, by directing the brethren and sisters to subscribe 



13 

with their own hands individually, and in the presence ol' 
the Council, — the Covenant of the Third Chnrcli, in the 
days of Mr. Leavitt. It is to be understood, also, that tlie 
Council were well aware, that all of them had been pro- 
fessors of religion, for a considerable period. 

If satisfied with the qualifications of persons in such 
circumstances. Councils usually express their satisfaction 
by some direct vote or resolution ; and make arrangements 
for a formal recognition of them in church standing. The 
present Council pass a series of resolutions, one of them in 
particular most remarkable and unexampled ; yet, in their 
further action, conform themselves essentially to the gen- 
eral usage in such cases. 

In a public meeting, for instance, in the place of wor- 
ship which had been fitted up for the brethren and their 
associates, the Result of the Council was read. The mod- 
erator then desired the brethren to make choice of a mod- 
erator of themselves ; that is, a standing moderator for 
church business. Such a choice is usually made by de- 
signating one of the leading members of the new organiza- 
tion, or perhaps the pastor of a neighboring church. In 
this case, the brethren made choice of Benjamin Ropes. 

The Covenant, wliich had been subscribed, was then 
also read, and doubtless assented to by the usual token ; — 
" which being done, the Rev. Moderator in the name of the 
Council declared fellowship wiiJi them as a sister church in 
regular standing ; and after the singing of a hymn suita- 
ble to the occasion, concluded with prayer." 

Now we should be glad to know from any Congregation- 
al minister in this County or State, if in these proceedings 
he cannot find an organization and establishment of a 
Congregational Church, with every essential as to mode 
and quality? And are there many of the older churches, 
which were more regularly formed, or which could more 
incontrovertibly identify the day, and describe the manner 
of their constitution 7 

We should also be glad to know, in what possible cir- 
cumstances, or by what imaginable process of transforma- 
tion, the fourteen brethren and twenty-four sisters, who 
were thus organized on the 14th of February, 1775, — and 
who before that day had no organization — could now be 
any other than a new organization, or a new> church, and, 
as such only, entitled to he considered, to he called, or to he 
nutnerlcally distinguished ? 

Not to anticipate, we will just add in this connexion, 
that, if there had been but two older Congregational Church- 
es, the new organization might have been styled, under 
existing circumstances, the New Third Congregational 



14 

Churrli. Hilt as there wore already three — leaving out ol 
account the Third C'Imrch of 1735 — there was no more 
propriety in their heinu; called the Third Church, or the 
Third CoiiLirviiatioiuil Church., than in their being called 
and also coiisiilered the First Church. 

The Council had a perfect competency to organize the 
l)rcthren and sisters as a Congregational Church, in regu- 
lar standing. Beyond or above that, they had no power to 
proceed. It was not for thetn to take away the rights of 
others, which were inalienable without consent. And 
neither from the words of the (ucat Head of the Church, 
nor from the accreditcti usages and established liberties of 
the New England Congregationalists, could they derive 
any authority or ability, to impart to the new organization 
of Feb. 14, 1775, any other rights or immunities, than such 
as are the common and legitimate possession of nil Con- 
gregational Churches, when duly constituted or recognized. 
Unhappily, they entirely transcended the limits of their 
prerogative, and vcMitnrcd upon an innovation, which we 
find it dilHcult to characterize, in terms'of becoming mod- 
eration and forbearance. 

In the midst of otherwise regular and satisfactory pro- 
ceedings, the following resolutions were unanimously a- 
dopted by the four pastors, with the delegates : — 

"It appears to us, after serious and careful attention to the best li?;ht 
which could be obtained, iliat the above named Benjamin Ropes, etc., 
toffcther with tliose sisters above referred to, are, in a reasonable and 
just construction, The Chimh, which existed in the Rev. Mr. Leavitl's 
day, and was under his pastoral care, and which, before the ordination 
of the Rev. Mr. Huntington, consented to take the name of the Third 
Congregational Church of Christ in Salem, and that they are entitled 
to all tiie privileges of that Church" ! 

" We find nothing that ought at all to deprive them of the Com- 
munion of the Churches ; and we recommend to them the renewing 
of their Covenant with God and with one anotiicr, at this time; and 
agree that the fellowship of the Churches be rencwedly given to them, 
as a Church in good standing. We earnestly recommenil to them that 
forgiving spirit, — that benevolent, inollensive, prudent conduct, — which 
becomes Christians and is their defence and glory : and our prayer is 
that the God of love and peace may be with them" ! 

Mr. Leavitt was settled in April, 1745, and Mr. Hunting- 
ton, in September, 17G3. The Council, then, it will be 
noticed, did not see '• light" enough, rcasunaJjly and justly 
to "construct" the fotirteen brethren and twenty-four sis- 
ters, as " The Church,^^ which existed when Dr. ^Vhitaker 
was settled in 17G0 ; btit " in the best light which could 
be obtained, the above named brethren and sisters" "ap- 
peared" to them to hi;, and therefore, it would seem, they 
were " 2Vlc Churrh,'' which existed ihirti/ years before, as 



15 

in " Rev. Mr. Leavitt's day," and ten years before, when 
Mr. Huntington was pastor ! And yet Dr. Whitakcr was 
settled as the pastor of the same Church, — the successor of 
those same pastors, — and with tlie heartiest approval of the 
same "above named brethren" ! 

It will be perceived, also, from the second resolution, 
that although the Council organized the brethren and sis- 
ters, in such form and manner as we have seen, they yet 
nominally endeavor to represent — they really disguise — 
the proceedings, as if they were only what would be suit- 
able, in a renen-nl of CovenanthY any Church which had 
long been constituted. But when did any Church thus re- 
new their Covenant? When were witnessed such formal- 
ities of organization in presence of a Council; and yet the 
members of the body having no need of organization, be- 
ing already a Church which had existed for forty years 7 

The second resolution was evidently moulded to agree 
with the first, and in combination with it was adapted to 
give a greater semblance of consistency, to the whole pal- 
pable inconsistency between what was pretended and what 
was done ; and a delusive show of reason to the utter ab- 
surdity of the attempt to create a fact, — to " construct" a 
new organization, and so ^^7-esolve'' it, or "resolve" con- 
cerning it, that it might be received as identical with the 
old, — and as the old formerly was, in the times of the pas- 
tors who had fallen asleep ! If the like was ever known, 
before or since, in ecclesiastical history, — when and where 
was if? 

And yet here is the whole foundation of the claim of the 
South Church, in opposition to that of the Tabernacle ! 
As the successors of the " fourteen brethren," they assume 
to be the very individual Church of 173.5, — upon the sole 
basis primarily of this first and this most extraordinary 
resolution of the small Council of 1775 ; — assembled too 
in circumstances of highly prejudiced excitement, and of 
very violent hostility to Dr. Whitaker and the adhering 
majority. 

Can it be that there has been a calm and considerate 
view of the intrinsic merits of the opi7iion of those few 
ministers and delegates, one of whom probably was the 
director of all? Is it to be believed, that the facts have 
really been understood ? Has the reasonableness and the 
justice of the unprecedented " constructioyi^'' ever been sub- 
jected to a candid and truly enlightened examination, by 
those who now insist, that, not in name only, but in real- 
ity and right, they are the Third Church of 1735 ? 



16 



TlII^ FIRST RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF FEHR'Y 
11, i:::.. hi'eciai.i.v f-xamim:!) and anai.vzf.d. 

The Council, it should be distinctly noticed, rv.'f.s/ifn vo 
reasons ir/iafcvcr, and do not in the least allude to any, for 
their "construction." Thero is not a syllable of the kind, 
in any part of their recorded Result. The "light" whicli 
they found to walk in, when they travelled out of tjie 
highway, and the more excellent way of the fathers, is all 
" darlcuc^ss visible" to us, for anything that " ap|)ears." 
Why now that concealment, that di])l()niatic phraseology. 
instead of an open, ingenuous, intelligible declaration of 
their reasons 1 

"In a reasonable and just construction, it appears to us," 
etc. — Construction of irkat, we ask, — words, — persons, — 
things that were, — or things that were not.' Who ever 
before heard of a '■'■ construction^'^ by which to decide a 
simple question, in regard to a matter of fact 7 And is the 
individuality or identity of a church to be determined by 
an opinion, from an appearance in a constrvction, any more 
than the personal individuality or identity of any one of 
the members 7 What would be thought of a verdict of a 
jury, by which a matter of fact, especially aflectiug a 
man's identity, was alllrmed or denied, according to a 
" construction" 7 

It would be impossible for us to account for this extraor- 
dinary resolve, were it not for the known opposition to Dr. 
Whitaker and the adhering majority of tbe Third Church. 
W^e can hardly suppose that the Council were so far infat- 
uated, as to imagine that they could thus invest the new 
organization with the lea^al title to the property of the Third 
Church. Yet it may so have been, or liave been hoped. 
Jiut " the fourteen brethren" bad been defeated in their 
conflict with Dr. Whitaker ; having been overmatched or 
circumvented, by his dexterous and clandestine manage- 
ment. They liad the strong sympathies of the members 
of this second Council, if not also of the first. And now 
we have not the slightest doubt, that this e.rtra-J7/(liciaf, — if 
we may borrow the term from the Courts of Law, — this 
entirely unprecedented procedure in the first resolution of 
tliis Result, was aimed at Dr. AVhitaker and the adhering 
majority, partly, if not chiefly or entirely, as a kind of mer- 
ited retaliation or reprisal, for tlie wrongs which they con- 
ceived themselves to have sutlered at his hands. It must 
liave been known, that it would be annoying in the ex- 
treme. 



We should have, been wholly at a loss for the idea or 
abstraction, as the jyrinciple assumed by the Council, in re- 
solviug as they did ; if it were not for the following pas- 
sage in a pamphlet by the leading member, Rev. Mr. 
Cleaveland, published nine years afterwards : — " In be- 
coming a Presbyterian Church, the Third Church," he 
says, "ceased to be a Congregational Church, and relin- 
quished all their peculiar rights, properties and claims of 
t5ie Third Congregational Church in Salem ; and the re- 
linquished style and claims returned to such of their mem- 
bers, as afterwards re-assumed the Congregational form." 

This passage, doubtless, refers to the action of the Coun- 
cil of February, 1775. In another paragraph there is also 
an allusion to the Result of this Council, as having " found 
light" to resolve as they did; with not a word, however, 
of explanation or vindication. Lest we should perplex 
the reader, by entangling the question before us, we pass 
over the occasion of this pamphlet and its general state- 
ments ; only remarking that it was a conclusive reply to 
Dr. Whitaker's defence of himself against the Council 
which removed him in 1784. 

Mr. Cleaveland was a very worthy man, and esteemed a 
good adviser. But in the Council of 177.5, he was betray- 
ed into an egregious error, Avhich afterwards embarrassed 
him not a little. Greater, if not better men, have committed 
mistakes, which have much surprised their friends and 
others. And unfortunately, when a public man makes 
a mistake before the public, he is, in general, very slow to 
correct it or to confess it. 

Let it be observed, that Mr. C. speaks of ^^ the Third 
ChurclC as '■'• ceasing to he CongregationaV ; not of indi- 
vidual members^ as separately ivithdrawing from the 
church and becoming presbyterian, nor of their thus re- 
nouncing Congregationalism. So far as tlie church had 
been Presbyterian, he knew which part remained so, and 
substituted the Boston Presbytery for a Congregational Ju- 
dicature. 

" The rellnqidshed siyle,'^ etc., he says, ^^ returned to 
such of their members," that is, of the Third Church, — ■ 
"as afterwards re-astsiimed the Congregational form." 
Thus we have his testimony that the fourteen brethren had 
not contliLued, but re assumed the Congregational form. 
And when did they re-assume this form, but at the time 
when " re-established in church order" ; or, more correctly 
speaking, when organized and recognized by the Coun- 
cil of 1775 ? 

Assuredly they could have had no organization separate 
from the majorityof the Third Church, at any time antece- 

3 



18 

(lent to their withdrawal from the Communion ; unless 
there wore two churches in one body, or one church with- 
in anotlier. If they had any organization previous to their 
dismission by the act of the presbytery, it has never come 
to our knowledge. And if after their dismission they were 
the Third Church, or were any church ])roperly, then 
they could have gone forward as such, without any " rt- 
cstaUishment i/i church order. ^^ 

" The peculiar rights, properties," etc., of wliich Mr. 
Cleavcland speaks, must include the title to the Records, 
the plate, and all other pecuniary interest, if the amount 
had equalled the vast funds of the Trinity Church in New 
York. All this, it would seem, is " relinquished" by a 
church, becoming presbyterian, " to such of its members 
as afterwards re-assume the congregational foriii'^ ! ! 

It is amazing, that any sensible man could have ever 
been beguiled by such a shadowy and delusive assumption. 
We should think from the form of expression, that there 
was an established law, or some ecclesiastical canon, well 
understood, and which could at once be cited. But it is 
ASSUMPTION, — ecery irord of it. 

There is no law in Church or Commonwealth, no usage 
or precedent, to which an appeal could be made for author- 
ity, or example. Beyond a doubt, such law or precedent 
would have been cited, if there had been any, in all the 
previous history of New England, or of Christendom. It 
was the mere opinion or sentiment^ the abstraction and im- 
agination, probably of I\Ir. Cleaveland alone; which " ap- 
peared" "reasonable and just" to himself, and in which 
others acquiesced. But as a conceit or device of the hour, 
to give plausibility to a new and indefensible procedure, 
— it answered its purpose far too successfully. 

As a principle^ however, we can put it to the test at 
once. When the Branch Church in Salem became Co7i- 
grcgational, there were some who were unwilling to sur- 
render their presbyterian preferences or rights. Suppose 
that after being dissatisfied and dismissed, or otherwise 
separated from the church, they had called a presbytery to 
"re-establish them in church order," as presbyterians. 
Could any presbytery, larger or smaller, have made them 
the old Branch Church / 

Could any presbytery liave put a minority in just pos- 
session, or invested them with a valid title to all " the pe- 
culiar rights, properties and claims" of that church, as ex- 
isting in the days of Rev, Mr. Spaulding and Rev, Mr. 
Blalchford? The funds of the church, for instance, if any 
there were? And has not a presbytery, as much legal or 



19 

ecclesiastical authority, as any Congregational Council, 
whether ex-parte or mutual 7 

The present Howard Street Church, as the Brancli 
Church has smce been called, dates its existence as a 
church, from its original organization, as presbyterian, in 
1805, — and not from the time it became congregational, in 
1827. The pastor of the South Church has so recognized 
this church, in the Appendix to his Sermon in 1843. If 
now n. presbyterian church does not change its identity^ as 
an organized body, by becoming congregational^ — how 
does a congregational by becoming presbyterian ? 

If the South CImrch were now to adopt the presbyterian 
mode of government entirely, according to the standard of 
the General Assembly, Old School and New ; — would the 
brethren say, that this church began in the year 1847 '? 
And if they should re-assume the congregational form, 
three years hence, would they date their beginning in the 
year 1850? 

Is not the river Jordan the same river, although in its 
course it passes some miles under ground? Did Oliver 
Cromwell's Protectorate in Great Britain, make any differ- 
ence in the identity of the throne and the realm of Charles 
Second, — as the continuation of the sovereignty of Charles 
First 7 Or did our City Charter alter the identity, and 
change the date of /SV/Zem? Are we not the same people 
as before, instead of being a new or another community? 
About as justly might the contrary be maintained, as that 
every man puts on a different identity, when he changes 
the fashion of his apparel. 

The vote of a church to administer its affairs by a ses- 
sion, instead of the whole brotherhood, — and also to refer 
difficulties to a presbytery, instead of a congregational 
council, — cannot dissolve the organization, nor in any re- 
spect make it a new body, in point of time. A church 
might be presbyterian and congregational, every alternate 
year, or month even ; without at all affecting the date of 
organization, or the ordinary constituents of ecclesiastical 
identity. 

The Boston Presbytery, which had received the Third 
Church of 1735, under its watch and care, June 1774, re- 
viewed the proceedings of the Council of Feb. 1775. In 
reference to the " construction''^ of that Council, the fol- 
lowing minute was passed at the meeting in Seabrook, 
June 1, 1775 : 

" By the representation made to this presbytery in their 
session at Salem, last September, it was made abundantly 
to appear by Dr. Whitaker in the presence of his adversa- 
ries, that those and those only who adhered to the agree- 



20 

merit and covenant produced (exhibited) by Dr. Whila- 
ker, arc the Third Church in Salem, of which the Rev. 
M*cssrs. Dudley Leavitt and Jolm Huntington were former- 
ly pastors; and that they and they only arc entitled to all 
the privileges and immunities belonging to the said Third 
Church. ALEXAnNKK McliKAN, Pres'y Clerk." 

This witness is no more ex-parte, than the Result of the 
Council, which it was designed to cojitravene. There 
were three times as many clergymen and twice as many 
delegates, as composed that Council. It was a very differ- 
ent body from the ^Salc/n presbytery, afterwards formed by 
Dr. "\\ hitaker. And to say nothing of the ]ii2li charac- 
ter of some of the members, — their testimony certainly is 
of some validity, in establishing our position, that presby- 
ter ianisni never changes the identify of a church as an or- 
ganized body. 

We will suppose again, that a Congregational Church, 
has, in some way, regular or irregular, become Presbyteri- 
an ; and that a minority are divided into tiro or three dij/'cr- 
cnl parties or companies, who are unwilling to act in con- 
cert, for a new organization, or for any other futnre eccle- 
siastical relations. They call their ex-parte Councils re- 
spectively, and are formed, or " re-established in chvrch or- 
der^ They each, however, "appear" to themselves "in 
the best light" which they profess to be able to fmd, to be 
entitled to all " the peculiar rights, properties, and immu- 
nities" of the church, which still claims to be the original 
church, as a regular, undissolved organization. And each 
Council decides accordingly ! 

After all "constructions," "resolutions" or "results," 
ever so unanimous and emphatic, — how many original 
churches would there be, — in addition to the church, from 
which these subdivisions of the minority had been dis- 
missed ; or WMth which they were no longer in regular 
standing as members? — The Crombie Street Church was 
formed by a separation from the Howard Street, in 1S32. 
The majority of the church, and of the congregation, with 
the pastor at the head, were organized in due form, as a 
new church and society. "What would have been thought 
of the Council, if after organizing the chinch, as it now 
exists, a vote had been passed, signifying the opinion of 
the bmly ronvened, that, in a reasonable and just con- 
struction, those brethren and sisters are the IJouard Street 
Chinch, as it existed in 1827, under the pastoral care of 
the Rev. Mr. Williams'.' With how much more propriety 
could such a vote have been passed, than the resolution of 
the Council of 17757 

Any necessity o( JC-eslablishtJicni or rc-organizeition, ini- 



21 

plies the begimiing of a neio ecclesiastical body. The dil- 
i'erent bodies in the case just supposed, might each take 
the name of the original church, and claim all the rights of 
the church. They might dismiss members under that 
name, and send letters missive. Other churches, in igno- 
rance, or courtesy, or from honest supposition of propriety, 
might call them by the same name. But whether this 
were done for seven years or seventy, would make no man- 
ner of difference, in the matter of reasonableness and 
justice. 

The laws of the land, in any question of property, 
would defend the Old Church, against all other organiza- 
tions, by whatever name they persisted in calling them- 
selves. If it were not thus, the powers of irresponsible 
ecclesiastical councils, would be above those of the Legis- 
lature. The enactments of the Legislature and the de- 
cisions of the Supreme Court would be completely under 
their feet. A beautiful state of order we should have, if a 
few of the clergy of tlie land could thus, at their pleasure, 
^'lord it over God's heritage." 

The simple historical fact i5, that the resolution of the 
Council of 1775, had no more effect upon " the rights, 
properties," etc., of the majority adhering to Dr. Whitaker, 
and sustaining the organization of 1735, than if no such 
Council had ever been called. 

The church of Dr. Whitaker,— the church of 1735,— of 
which he was still the pastor by the contract of 1769, re- 
tained all " the rights, properties," etc. of the Third 
Church, — in actual possession and legal protection. 

Some of the dismissed members held property in their 
hands, which was regularly and formally demanded and 
recovered. (See Appendix D.) And when, in April, 
1784, the church plate was in the hands of Dr. Whitaker, 
now removed from office. — and the church wished to take 
it from him, — a committee was empowered to demand it, 
and to use all necessary measures to obtain it. And it was 
obtained by a writ of replevin. It was obtained of course, 
as the property of the Third Church of 1735, — the same 
of which he had been pastor. 

If the Rev. Mr. Hopkins's Church were the Third 
Church, why was there no such action on their part 7 
How came the laws oj the land to be on the side of the 
Tabernacle Church, as the church was then commonly 
called? 

Such was the feeling towards Dr. Whitaker, at the time 
of the separation, that if by " writ of replevin," or any le- 
gal measures, the fourteen brethren could have obtained 
any part of that plate, there is not a shadow of probabili- 



22 

ty that they wouhl have permitted the sun to v^o down, 
many times after Feb. 14, 1775, — before they would have 
assorted their rights. The fact that they did not, nor even 
formally demand any part of the plate, any more than 
the Records, — is proof demonstrative, that they were fully 
aware, that the resolution of the Council was in law a 
mere nullity. 

They had a claim in cf/uihj. as the Third Church for- 
merly liad, in their settlement with the First Church. And 
when Dr. Whitakcr had fallen to the dust, and his church 
and congrci^ation were fast meliing away, a committee of 
the church of Mr. Hopkins made some private etVort to 
procure a recognition of their title to a share of the plate, 
belonging to the Third Church of 1735. How they pro- 
ceeded, is not known, neither can be conjectured from what 
appears in the South Church Records; unless they did, as 
individuals were said to have been doing, — to wit, '■'■con- 
versing loitli some of the members of Dr. Whitaker^s 
churc/i. in a soft, tender^ and christian manner^ It was 
by such manner only, that they coidd have had the least 
liope of success. Whatever tliey did, — they failed en- 
tirely. 

This effort was about seven years after the Council of 
Feb. 1775, and two years before the plate was taken by 
*' the writ of replevin." on demand of its legal owners. 
But in (October, 1785, when the church at the Tabernacle 
were about settling Mr. Spaulding, they consented to an 
equal division of the plate and all other interest of the 
kind, — Rev. Mr. Hopkins"s church paying one half of the 
expense. It was a token of conciliation in brotherly kind- 
ness, but not at all the recognition of any IcL^al claim ; and 
whatever may now be said of it, was understood at the 
time, but not in an invidious sense, to be a peace-offering. 
We have living testimony. (See Appendix E.) 

The legal aspect of the question under consideration is 
so plain, that we do not at all wonder, that the fourteen 
brethren never presumed to try the experiment of an ap- 
peal to the law. Centlemen of the highest eminence as 
jurists among us, have had it under their cognizance, in its 
essential points and connexions; and they have unani- 
mously decided against the claims of the South Church. 
One recently deceased, — who was of the very lirst respec- 
tability, — kindly gave attention to the subject, and deliber- 
ately said : — " 1 am willing to give my opinion, as a law- 
yer, and to have it known as my judgment, that the South 
(.'hurch has vo claim at all to be considered the Third 
Cliurch in Salem, 17:55 !"' 

IJut look again at the doings of the Council of 1775. It 



23 

may bo obJGCted that the fourteen brethren, etc., were not 
jnopcrlij dismissed ; and that the action of the presbytery 
was invahd. Whatever may now be objected, — the pre- 
amble of tite Result of the Council shows that the Council 
was called in consequence of their being " declared to be 
dismissed,^' and as no longer in regular standing with Dr. 
Whitaker's Church. The Council recognize this fact ex- 
pressly ; and as a warrant for tlieni to proceed to business, 
agreeably to letters missive from the brethren. Mr. Cleave- 
land's pamphlet, also, proves that the Council considered 
Dr. Whitaker, as having no proper claim to them, as mem- 
bers, they having all been " dismissed from the church, so 
as to be no part of it,''^ — according to his own admission. 
But we will admit, for the sake of argument, that the four- 
teen brethren, etc., had not been dlsmisstd from the Third 
Church. 

Were they, then, — that is, the fourteen brethren iJie Third 
Church of 1735, or were they not? If the Third Church, 
how had they become so, to the exclusion of their breth- 
ren and sisters, — who were a majority of nearly two to 
one of the former, and about five to one of the latter? 

These, the majority, never left the church ! They had 
never withdrawn from it in any mode whatever. They 
were in the same organized body, of which Dr. Whitaker 
took charge, about six years before, and which came down 
through the ministries of Messrs. Huntington, Leavitt and 
Fisk. Let the vote be produced, if there be any, or any 
ecclesiastical act of any description, by which the prede- 
cessors of the members of the present Tabernacle Church 
were dismissed from the Third Church of 1735. Let the 
day or month or year be authentically shown to us, in 
which their relation as regular members of the Third 
Church, as Dr. Whitaker found it in 1769, ivas dissolved! 

At the time of the Council of Feb. 1775, the majority, 
by a vast preponderance of numbers, were worshipping 
together in the same place of temporary accommodation ; 
they had the same Covenant as ever; the pastor settled in 
1769 was still their pastor, without any change of his re- 
lation to them ; they had the book of records, the plate, 
and every thing which legally pertained to the inheritance 
of the Church of 1735, in its distinctive organization and 
perpetuation. How then is it possible, that a minority of 
that church could be the Church ? 

Take a case from among the majority. Two sisters of 
the Third Church, A. B. and X. Y., became members in 
1766, — before Mr. Huntington's decease. Enjoying the or- 
dinary privileges of members in good and regular standing ; 
and without ever asking a dismission, or ever leaving the 



24 

communion of thn church, — they loimd thcmscivos in 
1770. under Dr. NVhitaker.s pastorul care, just as in 1773 
or l7G9. Of what church were they mcmhers in 1770, if 
not tlio same church which they joined in 1760 I If not of 
ifiat identical hody, hcfore called and then called Thiku 
Church. — how had they hcen separated from it I 

W^ere they no longer members, without knowing it? 
AVerc they con)miniing with l)rethren and sisters, the same 
as ever, and yet did not belong to their own cliurch '? 
Had they been transferred from one organization to an- 
other, while doing as Martha or iMary, or while they slept? 
Had they lost or changed their original chinch member- 
ship, without any more consciousness or suspicion of what 
had befallen them, than that they were no longer the same 
persons ? 

We will take the same individuals in 17SG, — the year 
after Mr. Spaulding's settlement as pastor of the Taberna- 
cle. They have now been communing for twenty years, 
as regular members of the Church of 1735, — according to 
their covenant. Were they or were they not ine/nOcrs of 
that chiircJi / If so, why not their sisters and their breth- 
ren who were in like circumstances ; and why were they 
not as a body, — how could they be otherwise than, — the 
Third Church, really and truly 7 

Dr. Whitaker, too, the pastor. — how had liis relation to 
the Third Church been terminated? Was there any dis- 
mission of him in Salem, previous to his removal from 
ollice in disgrace, in 1784? Did "the fourteen brethren,"' 
as bein^ the Third Church, ever dismiss him '? Did any 
Council of theirs ever depose him '? Had they not tried in 
vain, for more than two years previous to Feb. 1775, to 
compel him to take a dismission ; although not by any 
means as being, or professing themselves to be the Third 
Church, — to the exclusion of the majority who stood by 
him ? 

In Xov. 1778, these brethren settled Rev. J\lr. Hopkins 
as their pastor, and called him pastor of the Third Church. 
Dr. Whitaker, was still in his place, continuing his office, 
as the pastor of the same church which settled him, and 
which as before called themselves the Third Church. Of 
this name, it may be added, he was very tenacious. Now 
it will not be contended, that both these ])astors were over 
the same identical church, at the same time. lint if Mr. 
Hopkins was the regular pastor of the (Jhurch of 1735, 
which had come down under the charge of Messrs. Leavitt 
and Huntington to Dr. Whitaker, by what magic or en- 
chantment had Dr. "Whitaker given place to Mr. Hopkins, 
without bcingat all aware of the cliange ? Could he have 



25 

ministered to two dilTerent churclies in one organic body, 
or as two ditierent organic bodies, while never suspecting 
it, even to the day of his death 7 

Where, we would fain know, was the churcli of Mes- 
srs. Leavitt and Huntington, not in 1755, nor in 17G5, but 
in July 1709, — when Dr. Whitaker was settled? Where 
July 1770, or 1771, 1772, 1773, or 1774? 

Was Dr. Whitaker ecer the pastor of " the fourteen 
brethren" ? When he was their pastor, were they the 
whole church, or they and the twenty-four sisters'? If not 
the whole church, of what churcli were they a part, except 
tlie very churchy which, undissolved, continued to sustain 
him as their pastor, according to original settlement, until 
he was deposed in 17S4 7 

Further, — if '• the fourteen brethren," etc. were not in 
their own right the Third Church of 1735, we do ask most 
seriously, how could they become so ^ by any action of them- 
selves alone, or by the aid of any Council 7 Could it be 
by cnUiiis; themselves Third Church, and obtaining the ap- 
proval of four ministers and half a dozen delegates 7 Just 
so a miserable wreck of human nature may claim to be, 
and really be, George Washington^ by being named for 
him, and indomitably affirming that he has been called 
George Washington as his proper name, ever since he 
was born ! 

A church may come to consist of one member only ; 
and, if we mistake not, there is an example very near us. 
And although no Council, except possibly that of Februa- 
ry 1775, would organize one member, whether male or fe- 
male, — as a sister church, even by "construction" ; yet 
one member of any church in regular standing is just as 
much the church, as any other, and as all others, individ- 
ually considered. 

The Council of Feb. 1775, resolved that "the fourteen 
brethren, etc. are in a reasonable and just construction 
theclmrch, which existed in the Rev. Mr. Leavitt's day." 
Would it have made any diflerence, if there had been but 
seven brethren and twelve sisters 7 Or what if but four 
brethren and six sisters 7 Or two brethren and three sis- 
ters 7 — Reduce the number to one brother and one sister, 
or one brother alone, or one sister alone. In their oton 
right, they were each, in all respects, one as much as an- 
other, the Third Church of 1735. In other words, the 
fourteen brethren were fourteen Third Churches, as '^ ex- 
isting in Rev. Mr. Leavitt'' s day,'''' and the twenty-four 
sisters were also twenty-four more Third Churches, in a 
"construction" as "reasonable and just," as that all to- 



26 

gcthcr were the one Third Church, — the rights of more 
than a hundred others to the contrary notwithstanding ! 

In no way wliatever, then, can the " construction" of 
the Council of 1775 be shown to be " reasonable and just." 
Their very word conslrudUni, used as it was in the circum- 
stances, is fatal to every pretext of reasonableness. 

They had no right from any source, no authority by any 
law or usage, to do anything else than simply to organize 
*' the brethren," etc. by whom they were called, and "re- 
establish them in church order." Just as much power liad 
they to pass elfectual sentence of bonds or death upon Dr. 
Whitaker, as to iinrhurch the " adhering majority," and 
dispossess them of all their rights in the Third Church of 
1735, — in order that the new organization of the minority 
might have the whole inheritance. The majority were not 
upon trial by the churches, — according to " Third Way of 
Communion," or in any way. 

Councils, especially ex-parte, were no more infallible, 
seventy years ago, than at the present day- ^Ve Avonld 
not speak unkindly or uncandidly of that Council of 1775. 
We will award to them the merit of good intentions; but 
with all deference to their sagacity, we must say of their 
preposterous "construction," that a greater mistake or a 
more inexcusable blunder could hardly have been com- 
mitted. 

It was the duty of that Council to give " advice and as- 
sistance," according to /«d5. Of Mese and by these we too 
can judge. Some advantages we have, which they had 
not. And we have no question, that if the members had 
as well understood the diliiculties and the proceedings of 
the Third Church, in 1775, as they did in 17S4, that tirst 
resolve in their Result would have forever remained where 
it should have remained, — among the things which never 
were. 

We have never had anything like it, in our churches. 
There have been hundreds of cases, in which both mi- 
norities and majorities have withdrawn, seceded, been dis- 
missed, or exiled from the place where their fathers wor- 
shipped. But however much in any circumstances, those 
thus wiihdrawin<^ or scccdinf^^ dismissed or exiled, may 
have been alHictedor wronged, it is the invariable custom 
to consider them, as of necessity requiring a new organi- 
zation in some mode, and recognition as a distinct church, 
in order to enjoy a proper standing ecclesiastically, and 
avail themselves of the constitutional protection of the 
laws of the land. And we unhesitatingly aflirm, that 
there is not a congregational clergyman in iXew England, 
who would put his name to such a resolve, as that to 



27 

which our brethren of the iSouth Church would refer us, as 
if an immoveable foundation for their claim as the Church 
of 1735. If there be any such clergyman, we should be 
happy to see an argument from him, to the point of " con- 
slnictioii" and without any evasion or ambiguity. Let 
this be defended, if it can be, upon its intrinsic merits : 
and by some one, who is willing to be known among his 
brethren, as responsible for his opinions, and his expositions 
of New England Congregationalism. 

If the Council of 1775 had confined themselves to their 
appropriate business, the re-estahlishnient of the fourteen 
brethren hi church order, we should have had a respect for 
their Result and for them, which it is not possible for us 
now to cherish. 



CHURCH OF 1735. 

PART II. 

DISCREPANCIES IN PUBLISHED STATEMENTS, RESPECT- 
ING THE THIRD CHURCH DURING THE MINISTRY OF 
DR. WHITAKER. 

In present circumstances, the reasons are urgent for an 
exhibition of some historical facts, from which it may be 
seen, that the Tabernacle Church had cause to desire a 
settlement of the points of controversy between them and 
their brethren ; — not only from the liability to unpleasant 
direct collision, but still more from the palpable and irre- 
concileable discrepancies in the publications of the respec- 
tive pastors. 

In April, 1835, the pastor of the Tabernacle preached a 
discourse, in commemoration of the " First Centennial 
Anniversary" of the church, as being the Church of 1735. 
He gave an outline of the history of the church, with a 
particular notice of the series of pastors. It never entered 
his mind, that he was performing a service, which any 
person in the community v/ould consider, as properly be- 
longing to the pastor of the South Church. Yet if what 
has since been published by the latter, be a correct view of 
the subject, it was his place and not that of the pastor of 
the Tabernacle, to deliver such a centennial discourse. 

Before it was given to the press, it was read to the pas- 
tor of the South Church, for his friendly criticisms. No 
objection whatever was made to the discourse. 



28 

As It contains a condensed snnniinry of the most ini- 
])()ftant ])articnlars of the ministry of Dr. ^VIlitak(•r, jmkI 
was prejiared under so mncli less of that bias of partiality, 
which the writer luiirhtnow be suspected of feeling, — wn 
Avill extract the whole of that part of the discourse, word 
tor word, just as it was published, twelve years since. 

" Dr. Nathaniel Whitaker succeeded Mr. Huntington. When he hnd 
received the inx'ilation of the Church and Society to take the ovcr*ic;lil 
of them in the Lord, he prc-scribed certain important conditions of set- 
tlement. One of these was, that a new form of church ijovernment 
should be substituted for the Congregational ; and another, that lie 
should enter upon his duties without the accustomed ceremonies of in- 
stallation. The conditions were accepted. 

The 2Sth of July, 17G9, was appointed for public services at thecom- 
menceiuont of his ministry here, and several clergymen were invited 
by the Cliiircli to he present, " as friends to the Society and the com- 
mon cause of religion." The Rev. ]\les;rs. Dimond, Barnard, and 
Holt declined giving their countenance to such an irregular proceed- 
ing. In a very friendly letter they rerrmnstrated agHinst the course. 
But the people were so charmed with the man of their choice, that 
tliey went forward as if under tlie reckless impulse of infatuation. 
After a sermon by the Pastor elect, one of the members of the Churcij 
read the invitation which had been given to him to settle with them in 
the ministry, and the Pastor read his answer to the invitation. In this 
manner was the Rev. Dr. Whitaker inducted into his office as Pastor 
of this Church ! Dazzled by the brilliancy of his intellect and elo- 
(jnence ; captivated " by fair words and goodly speeches," they threw up 
their ecclesiastical liberties, and took upon their necks a yoke of bon- 
dage, which they soon found to be grievous bevond endurance. 

The Constitution of Church Governinent presented by Dr. AVhita- 
ker in the Articles of Agreement between him and the Church, was 
essentially Presbyterian. It went beyond Preshyterianisni, by giving 
to the Pastor a right to negative the votes of the elders and uf the 
whole Church. (Jn the contrary, it fell short of Presbylerianism, by 
providing for a reference of dilliculties to congregational councils, un- 
til a stated Judicature should be determined. That this Judicature was 
intended by Dr. W. to be a Presbytery, is evident from the measures 
which he took in 1774, to bring the Church under the Boston 
Presbytery. 

Hardly had the Church begun to experience the effects of the new 
mode of administration, when a very respectable number were aroused 
to make a determined efVort to return to the former state. They en- 
deavored, but inefVectually, to avail themselves of an article in the 
Constitution, by which the existing government might be modified or 
abolished. Some proposals, liowever, were made by the Pastor to pre- 
vent " the fourteen uneasy brethren" from prosecuting their opposi- 
tion. Those mem!)ers of the Church who preferred to be governed 
by the Constitution, and those who chose the t'ambridge I'latform, 
were to liave their option. The Pastor was to preside at the meetings 
of each party in the Church. He was not to have the power to urga- 
live any votes of such meetings; milhcr was la to be nblisrtd to execute 
a)U/ jiulfrtnent tcliirU tluj/ should tiuikc, uvlcss lir should tliiuk btst! 

It is amazing lh;it l>r. Whitaker should have supposed it possible, 
tliat a Church would consent to be thus virtuallv divided into two 
bodies, or that the aggrieved brethren would be ensnared by such a 
frivolous artifice. They replied to him with great force, and not a lit- 



29 

tie of stingingf severity. At the close of their letter, bearing date No- 
vember 18, 1773, they express "their earnes^t desire, thai lliis plan of 
Church Government be totally demolished ; and that the Church be 
allowed to return and rest upon the stable basis of pure and unmixed 
Congregationalism." (See Appendix F.) 

It was not long before these brethren proposed to the Pastor to take 
a dismission i'rom the Church. He at first waived the subject, being 
as unwilling to resign his office, as to demolish his favorite Constitu- 
tion of Church Government. If at this time the brethren had demand- 
ed a Congregational Council, they would have acted in full accordance 
Avith the terms upon which that Constitution was received by the 
Church. 

Having, by an adroit and clandestine process, placed the Church un- 
der the jurisdiction of the Boston Presbytery, he proposed to bring the 
subject before that body, in May, 1774. (See Appendix G.) Hisplan 
did not succeed. In September, the Presbytery held a meeting in this 
place. They recommended a reference of the difficulties to a mutual 
council, consisting equally of Presbyterians and Congregaiionaiists. 
The recommendation was not accepted ; and in consequence, the four- 
teen aggrieved brethren were dismissed from the Church by an act of 
the Presbytery. It may be added here, that these brethren were in 
February of 1775, regularly constituted a Congregational Churcli. 
Hence tiie origin of the Church now under the care of the Rev. Dr. 
Emerson. 

When the new Church was formed, a very respectable Society soon 
surrounded and sustained the brethren. Pveports unfavorable to Dr. 
Whitaker's moral character, were so current and so credible, that his 
congregation constantly decreased. 

It should also be mentioned, that it Avas only a few months before 
the formation of the new church, that the meeting house erected for 
Mr. Fisk in 1735-6, was entirely consumed. Nothing but the pulpit 
bible and cushion were saved from the flames. 

By very great eiforts, the frame of the present house Avas erected in 
177(3. It Avas covered, and pews were made in J777. But itwas 
Avithout galleries, Avithout pulpit, and Avithouteven plastering upon the 
Avails, In this condition, so emblematic of the miserable circumstan- 
ces of the people, it Avas dedicated as a house of God. It VA^as fashion- 
ed after the model of Whitefield's Tabernacle in London, and received 
its name in honor of his memory. He had preached for Dr. W hi taker 
but a short time before his sudden decease at Newburyport. Dr. 
Whitaker when in England, a few years previous to his settlement in 
Salem, had also received marked attentions from some of the most in- 
timate friends and patrons of this eminent evangelist. Soon after 
Whitefield's death, he rendered an appropriate tribute to his character 
in two very able sermons. And when the present house Avas opened 
for the Avorship of God, he gave it the name Avhich has ever since de- 
signated the edifice, the Church, and the Society. 

Dr. Whitaker's feelings Avere much enlisted in the revolutionary 
contest. By his sermons he endeavored to animate the people to great 
exertion, and in various other ways, some of Avhich Avere very uncleri- 
cal, he labored to promote the cause of American Independence. 
While thus engaged in other employments than those Avhich pertained 
to the warfare of a soldier of the cross, his christian character became 
more and more questionable. 

In the autumn of 1783, the Church Avere compelled to investigate 
the current reports, so unfavorable to their Pastor. They had long 
been accustomed to frown upon them Avith indignation and contempt. 
They now applied to Dr. Whitaker to take some proper measures to 



30 

rt'lievp himself ami llic Church from (lie sii^ma of general reproach. 
They were answeir-d wilh severe rebuke, and were bicJilen to continue 
ihfir alienilnnce upon his ministry ; riieanwhile preparinij their charges 
anil proof, if they jileased to present the case before the Presbytery. 

Of the l're>bytery Dr. Whitaker was himself the moderator. It 
consisted of but a very few ministers ; and not more than two or three of 
them had any pastoral chr.rire. They were to meet at Groton in June 
of the next year. The lenj^th of tune which must elapse before the 
Church could have a hearing, the distance of the place of meeting, 
and consequent inconvenience and expense of appearing there with the 
requisite committee and witnesses, and the improbability of obtaining 
nn impartial and righteous adjudication, filled the minds of all who 
were specially interested, with impatient dissatisfaction and painful 
solicitude. Besides, the number of worshippers in the Tabernacle di- 
minished with such appalling rapidity, that the building soon became 
a frightful picture of moral desolation. According to the testimony of 
a venerable member of the Church, still living among us, and to 
whom 1 am much indebted in the compilation of this narrative, "the 
whole congregation, except the families of Ihrte, individuals, had scat- 
tered themselves among other religious assemblies." (See Appen- 
dix H.) 

The attention of the Church was now directed in solemn earnest, to 
the nature and tendency of that form of government, by which they 
were so enibarrassed and alllicted. The result of their deliberations 
w^as a full persuasion of the expediency of returning to the privileges 
of Congregationalism. Wishing to have a regular action upon the sub- 
ject, they requested the Pastor to warn a Church meeting. This was 
refused. A meeting was then called by the elders. Votes were pass- 
ed, abjuring all allegiance to any Presbyterian authority, adopting the 
mode of administration prescribed by the Cambridge Platform, and in- 
viting a Council to inquire whether the Pastor had not forfeited his 
ofTice, by his disorderly life. 

When the Council assembled, they made some investigation of the 
subjects referred to them, and then proposed to Dr. Whitaker to unite 
with the Church in a mutual Council, consisting equally of Presby- 
terians and Congregationalists. He would listen to no such proposal, 
and utterly refused to acknowledge their title to sit in judgment upon 
the case. They met on the lOih of February, 17S4, and adjourned to 
meet on the 24th. Their Result vindicates the right of the Church to 
appeal to a Congregational Council, confirms the doings of the Church 
in renouncing Pre^bvlerian government, and declares Dr. Whilaker's 
connexion with the Tabernacle to be dissolved. (See Appendix I.) 

This Result was hailed with great satisfaction throughout the com- 
munity. Dr. Whitaker's labors were brought to a close on the 25th of 
March. The doors of the Tabernacle were barred against him. Such 
was now the situation of the man who, in ITG'j, was settled by accla- 
mation. It is true, that the Presbytery at Groton, in June following, 
honored him as their head, and listened to him as their father. They 
excommunicated the Tai)ernacle Church, and gave Dr. Whitaker a 
certificate of their approbation and confidenre. (See Appendix J.) 
He also obtained from the proprietors of the Tabernacle, a considera- 
ble sum of money, as an award for alleged losses and arrearages du- 
ring his ministry here." 

Ill the more recent and far more thorough investigation 
of tlie foregoing transactions, tlic writer has liad the satis- 
faction to find, that there is scarcely a sentence, wliich 
needs any modification in general or particular. If, how- 



31 

ever, he had anticipated the present state of the snbject, he 
would probably have introduced some other matters of in- 
formation, and perhaps have been a little more precise in 
defining the space between some of the landmarks of lime ; 
so that the cursory reader might have been more sure to 
receive the intended impression. (See Appendix K.) 

About eight years after the Centennial Discourse at the 
Tabernacle, a discourse was published, entitled, "A Ser- 
mon delivered in the South Church, Salem, on the Thirty- 
eighth Anniversary of his Ordination, by Brown Emer- 
son, D. D." 

One paragraph only in the body of the sermon, relates 
to the history of the Third Church : 

" The Third Church was formed from the First in 1735, and pros- 
pered under the labors of its three first pastors, Messrs. Fisk, Leavitt 
and Huntington. But under the fourth pastor, Dr. Nathaniel Whita- 
ker, a sharp contention arose between him and a part of the church, 
during which their house of worship was burnt, and a majority of the 
church adhering to Dr. Whitaker, became Preshjlerians, built the 
house of worship now called the Tabernacle, and took -the same name 
as their ecclesiastical designation. Their present pastor is the Rev. 
Samuel M. Worcester. After this withdrawal of the majority, which 
took place in 1774, entering another denommation and taking another 
name, the minority, in 1775, called an ecclesiastical council to decide 
the question, whether the minority, remaining on the Congregational 
platform, ought to be considered as the original Third Church formed 
in 1735? The council unanimously decided that it ought to be thus 
considered. The church that I have the pleasure to serve, has, ac- 
cordingly, from that lime to the present, been considered and called the 
Third Congregational Church in Salem" 

In the Appendix we find an extract from the Result of 
Council, which has been already cited in these remarks. 
There is also a list of the pastors of the Third Church, as 
follows : — 

« Third CiiiTRCH.— Samuel Fisk, [settled in] 1736; resigned 1745, 
Dudley Leavitt, 1745; died 1762. John Huntington, 1763; died 1766. 
Nathaniel Whitaker, 1769 ; withdrew 1774. Daniel Hopkins, 1778; 
died 1814. Brown Emerson, 1805." 

The Tabernacle Church and the pastors, are thus dis- 
tinguished in the Appendix : 

" Tabernacle Church.— Nathaniel Whitaker, [settled in] 1774 ; re- 
signed 1784. Joshua Spaulding, 1785; resigned 1802. Samuel Wor- 
cester, 1803 ; died 1821. Elias Cornelius, 1819 ; resigned 1826. John 
P. Cleaveland, 1827 ; resigned 1834. Samuel M. Worcester, 1834." 

How far these two discourses agree, we would say it very 
pleasantly, it may be more difficult to determine, than how 
far they differ. And if such conflicting documents are fair 
examples of history, or the materials of history, no one 
need be surprised at its proverbial " uncertainties." 

In commenting, as we must, our position is that of self- 



32 

tlofcnco. The piil)Iic liavo a rii^lit to know the facts. Wo 
should be anioiii; tlio last to iiitiiiialc; or to suppose, that 
th(^ vriiiMahlc author of the " 'J'hirty-Eighth Anniversary 
Sciinon" had any intention of doing violence to the trnth 
of history. And tlie carcfnl reader cannot fail to notice, 
that the whole paragraph quoted from it is very peculiarly 
constructed. There is an evident purpose to establish the 
claims of the South Church, while in the (irgicment which 
is so incor[)orated with the narrative, there is no expres- 
sion of the i)reachcr's personal opinions or individual con- 
victions, lie appears only as the organ of others, and as 
having no responsibility beyond that of a simple narrator 
of events and occurrences. 

He could not have been unaware, however, that, in 
some very important particulars, liis statements were in 
marked contrariety to those, which he had repeatedly 
lieard, and wliich had boon formally published. It is much 
to be regretted, that ho did not goto the original sources of 
authentic information; and by appropriate research en- 
deavor to verify, or to correct, liis general impressions and 
very natural and allowable partialities. However sincere- 
ly he may have written, the mistakes and errors are none 
the less ; neither are other persons any the less liable to be 
misled, and to credit or to publish, as upon the very best 
authority, what really is a radical or entire mistake in 
point of fact. 

The sermon was occasional, and was given to the pub- 
lic, as a contribution to the history of Salem, as well as an 
aflectionate acknowledgment of the very agreeable rela- 
tions of the pastor to a people, who have so comniendably 
and so long fulfilled their pledges of respect and esteem. 
It was quite extensively circulaFed, and was read by hun- 
dreds. It is to be found on the shelves of many clergy- 
men and others, and most probably in the libraries of all 
our Historical Societies. Even to this day, after all the ob- 
jections which have been made known, as it respects the 
([uestion before us, copies are still distril)utcd, as if it were 
most veritable and unexceptionable. It has begun to be 
([noted as such, in compilations of ecclesiastical statistics. 

Again and again, have we bern asked, " Is that state- 
7nent correct, in rcgai'd to the Third Church ? We have 
always had a different impression," — was the accompany- 
ing remark, or sentiment. We of course have answered 
in the negative. And what we have said privately and 
freely, yet not unkindly, as we trust. — we nuist now be per- 
mitted to say publicly, while not at all insensible to the ex- 
ceeding delicacy of this part of our vindication. 

To the historic sketch of the Third Church, and to the 



33 

Appendix of the Sermon in 1843, — we have one objection, 
which inchidcs all the rest. It is, that no person can here 
obtain any jnst idea of the origin and history, either of the 
T'abcniacle Church or the South Church. The whole nat- 
ural and inevitable impression is erroneous. 

2. Bat to be more specific, — we object most unqualified- 
ly to the date of the origin or beginning of the Tabernacle 
(Jilurch. This is given, as 1774. We suppose it was by 
inference from the " construction" of the Council of 1775, 
and to present an appearance of consistency with the 
claim of the South Cliurch. But may we write history 
by inference from assumptions or imaginations, to harmon- 
ize our hypotheses or theories, or accommodate " any pri- 
vate interpretation"? Never before did we see it pub- 
lished, or hear of its being written or spoken by any per- 
son, that the Tabernacle Church beganiu 1774 ! It would 
have been equally correct to have said 1794, or 1S24, or 
1854, or 40U4. 

3. The Church is also made to appear, as if formed by 
a well known and undisputed "withdrawal of a majority" 
of the church, which is now generally called the South 
Church. Such a license of speech, we must be allowed to 
say, is unauthorized in history, both civil and ecclesiasti- 
cal. For a " majority" to consent to a change in the rela- 
tion of a church to other churches, — by Avhatever method 
of expressing their Avill, — is no ^^ wiilidrawal,'^ in any 
sense, from the church itself. The " majority" never 
moved a hair's breadth from the organization, which was 
known in Salem as the Third Church. We know not 
how those could withdraw, who remained in the same 
place. In the Sermon, therefore, the expression '■'■ witli- 
drawnl of the majority,''^ is a misnomer altogether. It 
would in every respect be as true to say, in a history of 
our country, that, in consequence of the Stamp Act and 
other grievances. Great Britain revolted from the Thirteen 
Colonies, and declared independence, July 4, 1776 ! 

4. It is equally an unauthorized statement in the Appen- 
dix, that Dr. Whitaker withdrew from the Third Church, 
in 1774, and resigned as pastor of the Tabernacle in 1784. 
He never was settled over but one church in Salem, from 
1769 to 1784. With as good reason might it be said, that 
he never was pastor of the Third Church, " no, not for an 
hour," — as that he loithdrexo from the church ! 

And a very extraordinary " resignation,''^ as well as 
" withdrawal," Dr. Whitaker would have accounted it, if 
in his life-time, he had seen himself thus represented. In 
1784 he was removed from his pastoral office, and was de- 
posed from the ministry, by a course of measures, which he 

5 



34 

resisted to the last extremity of infatuation nnd despera- 
tion. If as a member of the clinrch he had been cxcoin- 
TrAinicalcd for gross intemperance, it might as properly 
have been said, that he was " dismissed in good and regu- 
lar standing?." 

5. The Third Church is described, as if the " fourteen 
brethren" had never been upon any other than a purely 
" congregational jtlatform ;" but as tliey were before Dr. 
Whi taker's settlement, and in the days of his predecessors, 
so they had " remained." Yet those identical brethren 
received Dr. Whitaker, with all his presbyterian condi- 
tions ; and three of them were among his five ciders or 
session, in 17G9, 1770, 1771, and one of them in 1772. 
The statement, moreover, is entirely irreconcileable with 
the witness of the brethren themselves. (See Appen- 
dix L.) 

6. The "majority," we are told, "became prcsbytcri- 
an5," during the progress of the " sharp contention" be- 
tween Dr. Whitaker and " a part of the church ;" and that 
too, as is implied, aflcr the burning of the house of 
worship, Gth of October, 1774. Boili " the majority" 
and "the minority" were "presbyterian," the one as wiick 
as the other, when the " contention arose." The presby- 
terian admixture in the Congregationalism of the church, 
was introduced by the whole body of the church, with 
one consent. 

It was neither an effect nor consequence, nor cause, nor 
occasion of the " sharp contention." The fourteen breth- 
ren were a thousand fold more dissatified with Dr. Whita- 
Ker himselt', than with the form of government, which, 
" with fair words and goodly speeches" he " persuaded them 
to adopt." Presbyterianism was one plausible pretext for 
the " contention ;" but the " sharpness" of it was their en- 
tire personal loathing of " the proud, the arrogant, the 
haughty man," " the violent and overbearing." 

The choice of the Boston Presbytery as a Judicature, 
instead of Congregational Councils, would not of itself 
have made the adhering majority, — that is to say, the 
Third Church, presbyterian. There are hundreds of Con- 
gregational Churches, on the Western Reserve, which are 
thus connected with presbyteries. When the Boston Pres- 
bytery accepted the petition of the majority, in June 1771, 
it was undoubtedly with the understanding, that the Third 
Church was already presbyterian, and had been so virtu- 
ally, from the settlement of Dr. Whitaker. And it was 
the Third Church, which they took under " their watch 
and care;" not sundry seceding members of that church. 

But all the measures, every one, which resulted in the 



35 

dismission and separation of " the fourteen brethren" from 
the Third Church of 1735, preceded the fire of the 6th of 
October, by several months, or by wliole years. And 
what ctiect could a fire have had upon church-membership 1 

Beyond question, however, these brethren were stimu- 
lated to attempt what they did, for "a re-establishment in 
church order," by a separate organization, in consequence 
of the disaster of the fire, which very greatly embar- 
rassed Dr. Whitaker and his friends. Although, as in- 
dividuals, "the fourteen" and some others had previ- 
ously retired from the house of worship and the ordinan- 
ces, as administered in the Third Church ; yet it was not 
until after this event, that the strong wall of partition be- 
tween the majority and the minority was thrown up, in 
the sight of all the inhabitants of the place. Hence it has 
been common to speak of the separation^ as occurring after 
the fire of the 6th of October. 

7. Between the 6th of October, 1774, and February 15, 
1775, a period of less than five months, — "the majority," 
as represented in the history before us, — " built the new 
house of worship, called the Tabernacle, and took the same 
name for their ecclesiastical designation." This is the ob- 
vious meaning, as the sentences are written, designating 
chronologically the "contention," "the burning of the 
house," the "becoming presbyterians," "entering another 
denomination," and " taking another name." It was, ac- 
cording to the Sermon, after and in consequence of these 
events and proceedings, that the minority called the Coun- 
cil of Feb. 1775. No mention is made of the Council of 
Jan. 10, — which must have been called by the same "mi- 
nority," in less than three months after the fire ! 

" The house of worship called the Tabernacle," so 
far from being built in mid- winter of 1774-5, — and so 
suddenly in that period of severe pecuniary distress, — was 
not even in frame of being, until more than a year after 
the time of the Council, which organized the fourteen 
brethren. A plan had indeed been devised, and arrange- 
ments for it were in progress. But the name, as "the ec- 
clesiastical designation" of the majority, could have been 
no more a reason for the calling of that Council, than it 
was for the settlement of Dr. Whitaker in 1769, — or of 
Dr. Worcester in 1803. 

Such errors do not in the least affect the merits of the 
main question at issue. But beyond a doubt those several 
events would not have been narrated as they were, in suck 
anachronistic grouping or connexion, if it had not been 
for a supposed argumentative value. We know that some 
who heard, or who havx3 read the Sermon, so considered 



30 

llioin; ami roftMTcd to ihcm, as very tsubstantial jnoof.^, 
cviou, that the Tabcriiaclc Cliurch ought not to he legaiil- 
cd as the Tliird Church of 1735. As if " another name"' 
could make a new church; or as if Jacob could have been 
changed in his personal identity, or have sustained any 
loss in his rights or inheritance, by being called Iskael ! 
Wo have always understood, that he was still Jacob, no 
less aflcr than before he was so distinguished. We feel 
(]uitc confident, that at least he wns before. 

8. According to the Sermon of IS13, the Tabernacle 
Church is sli/l jjrcsbi/icriun, and also their pastor. It is 
said, " their present pastor is the Rev. Samuel M. Wor- 
cester;" — that is, the pastor of those "presbyterians," who 
" built the new house of worship,"' etc. 

Not a word is said of tlie church, as ever having become 
congregational, or being otherwise than presbytcrian, as 
in the days of Dr. Whitaker ; — while in a note concerning 
the Howard Street Church, it is expressly stated, that that 
church was formerly presbytcrian, but became congrega- 
tional in 1S27. 

Any person, a compiler of statistics, for example, would 
conclude, of course, unless otherwise informed, that the 
Tabernacle is a presbytcrian church, at this very day. 
Should it be thus ?- Was it necessary to refer to tiie Tab- 
ernacle Church in an oblique, incidental manner, instead 
of such a notice as was taken ot the other churches.^ 

There would have been a more serious dilficulty, as we 
must think, in sketching a separate notice of this church, 
than in the course adopted. IJut not to liave named the 
church, nor in any way to have alluded to it, in the Ser- 
mon or tiie Appendix, would have been more satisfactory 
to those most concerned. Wc were astonished and deeply 
aggrieved. It was too much to presume, that we should 
submit in silence. 

9. From the statement of the call of the Council of 1775, 
it would be inferred, that their sole business was " to de- 
cide the (juestion whether the minority remaining upon the 
congregational platlbrm ought to be considered, as the 
original Tliird Church of 1735." But the preamble of the 
Result of the Council states, with special distinctness, that 
they were called to give ^^ advice and assistance in a re- 
establislnncntof cJiurck order T^ 

lU. It would also be inferred, that tlie Council took no 
measures whatever, such as are customary in the forma- 
tion of churches. This was doubtless supposed to be true. 
IJut we liave demonstrated from their own doings, as rela- 
ted in llie South Church Records, that that very Council 
organized the brethren, according to every essential rc([ui- 



37 

site of the approved constitution of congregational church- 
es. The Council evidently meant to liave them stand firm 
as a church ; whether or not the other " construction" 
would stand. We had never heard of the Council of Jan- 
uary 10, and were nuich surprised to find the references to 
it, in the same Records. 

11. "The Council," it is said, "unanimously decided, 
that it ought to be so considered ;" that is, the " minority," 
as we understand the antecedent of "i^," "ought to be 
considered as the original Third Church formed in 1735." 
We mast object to this sentence, as imparting a deeper 
shade of error to the natural impression, from the previous 
parts of this unfortunate paragraph. 

We have heard of utianimoiis votes^ to give popular el- 
fect to resolutions, as if the voice of a multitude were 
speaking; when, in sober fact, there was but a chairman, 
secretary, and, perhaps, one other individual, for the whole 
assembly or convention. The Council of 1775, we have 
seen, were not a very numerotis body, and as we under- 
stand the resolution referred to, they did not express them- 
selves, as if their light was " as the light of the morning, 
when the sun risetli, even as a morning without clouds." 

Besides, it would seem to be implied, that the Council 
had final power, legislative or judicial; so that whatever 
they might decide, would be as binding as a statute of the 
Commonwealth, or a judgment of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in full bench. And of course no one, it 
would also appear to have been taken for granted, would 
presume to go behind their Result, and scrutinize the pro- 
priety and the validity of their proceedings. But there is 
a tribunal, which has reversed or annulled very many er- 
roneous and unrighteous decisions. It is higher than all 
Councils, all Courts of Justice, and all Legislatures. To 
that we claim the privilege of appeal. It is the tribunal 
of unsophisticated, unprejudiced, unimpassioned common 

SENSE. 

12. In the conclusion of the narrative concerning the 
Third Church, it is said : — " The church that I have the 
pleasure to serve, has, accordingly, from that time to the 
present, been considered and called the Third Congrcga- 
tiojial Church in Saletii." It is thus very significantly im- 
plied, that the "construction" of the Council received very 
general approval, and that all which is claimed by the 
South Church as the Church of 1735, has been ratified by 
the concurring voice of the community. 

We do not deny, that they of the South Church have 
" called themselves Third Church;" as Mr. Spofibrd, in his 
Gazeteer for 1828, has very precisely and emphatically 



38 

stated. Wc moro than siispoct, from tlio comploxinn of 
liisiarticle upon Salem, that lie had Dr. Jiontlcy"s "Des- 
cription," before him, and thence derived the hint lur that 
very trne and very snggestive remark. 

Neither do we deny, that tlic Sonth Chnrch has some- 
times been called Third (/luH"ch by others, — in courtesy or 
throngh ii^iiorancc, — principally, by those not resident in 
Salem, and those who had no particniar knowledge of the 
veritable history of the clinrch. IJnt that the chnrch has 
been intelligently and generally, in Salem or ont of it, 
both ^^ called and considered the Third Congregational 
Chnrch" of 1735, — we mnst use the liberty oi" doubting, 
without reserve. 

Wc care not how many witnesses may be brought a- 
gainst us, if we can only have the privilege of a fair and 
honorable cross-examination, before an upriglit, impartial 
jury or judge. And no written or printed testimony, of 
any name or nature, which could be at all regarded as 
countenancing the claim of the South Church, has ever 
yet passed under our eye, which cannot most easily be re- 
pelled, neutralized, or resolved into nothingness. 

The evidence of historical documents, properly so call- 
ed, is very limited. Dr. Bentley's "Description of Salem" 
brietly, but very accurately, records the separation from 
Dr. Whitaker, and the establishment of the minority as 
the church Avhich settled the Rev. Mr. Hopkins, in No- 
vember, 1778. " They who separated themselves from 
Dr. Whitaker, purchased an assembly house, built in 17GG, 
and took the name of Third Church. Dr. Whitaker with 
his friends erected a new house called the Tabernacle, in 
1776." " He had claimed to be under presbyterian gov- 
ernment since 1769." 

As an authority^ worthy of real respect, in the decision 
of the present question, this is the earliest, if not far the 
best of all historical testimonies, from impartial and inde- 
pendent witnesses. " They who separated themselves 
from Dr. AVhitakcr tnnk the name of Third Chwcli.'^ It 
was not Dr. AVhitaker that separated from them; but they 
from Dr. Whitaker. They were not the Third Church ; 
were neither considered, nor called the Third Church : but 
they " tonlc'^ wliat did not belong to them, " the name of 
Third Church." 

Dr. IJentlcy knew the prominent facts, as well as any 
other man, who has left any written witness concerning 
them. Although his notice is very brief, it is strictly accu- 
rate, we believe, in every particular. It outweighs all tes- 
timony of every description, in favor of the South Churcli. 
as being the identical Third Church of \loo. 



39 

Rev. J. B. Felt, in "The Annals of Salem," first pub- 
lished in 1S2S, — very correctly represents the Council of 
Feb. 14, 1775, as convened '■'■ to form, a chiircli''' of the 
brethren and sisters, whom he sty ies '^ secede?'s from Dr. 
Whilaker^ s church.'''' He also describes them as " d'ls- 
in'issecV according to a decision of the Boston Presbytery. 
After extracting from the Records of tlie South Church, 
what he conceives to be the substance of the "construc- 
tion," he has elsewhere referred to some incidents or tran- 
sactions in the church then formed, which, however, he 
follows the Records, in calling Third Church, — as if it were 
properly so called. The Third Church, he had previously 
stated, ^'- became i)reshijttrian in 1769." 

In the Quarterly Register of the A. E. Society, there 
may be found a complete list of the " Congregational and 
Presbyterian ministers, who were settled in the County of 
Essex, Mass., from the first settlement to the year 1834. 
By Rev. Joseph B. Felt, late of Hamilton, Mass." For 
the ministers of the Tabernacle and South Churches, we 
have the following series : 

"Tabernacle Church. — Samuel Fisk. 1735; Dudley 
Leavitt, 1745; John Huntington, 1763; Nathaniel Whita- 
ker, D. D., 1769 ; Joshua Spauldina:, 1785; Samuel Wor- 
cester, D.D., 1803; E. Cornelius, fS19; John P. Cleave- 
land, 1827; Samuel M. Worcester, 1834." 

South Church. — Daniel Hopkins, D.D., 1778; Brown 
Emerson, D.D., 1805." 

We have no need of comment upon the difference be- 
tween this series by the compiler of the " Annals," and 
that of the Appendix to the Sermon of 1843. Very cer- 
tainly both cannot be correct. 

" The Essex Memorial," 1836, has the correct date and 
style of the two churches ; and it is a work, which is as ac- 
curate, we believe, as any of its class. " The Salem Di- 
rectory," has the same. Although published by a mem- 
ber of the Tabernacle Society, it is not, we trust, any the 
less credible or creditable. The " Congregational Register 
for 1847, by Rev. Parsons Cooke," — which is the latest 
compilation, in which we have seen any notice of the 
churches, — gives the number of years since the constitu- 
tion or beginnmg of all the Congregational Churches in 
Massachusetts: — for the Tabernacle Church, 111, and for 
the South, 71. 

There is one notable exception to this class of testimo- 
ny, and the only one of which we are aware. It is that 
of "Hayward's Gazeteer, 1846," in which the South 
Church is styled Third Church, and four of the pastors of 
the Tabernacle are placed in a series, as if the predeces- 



40 

snrs of Dr. Tlopkins and Dr. I'^mor.^on ; — prrriscly ns fust 
piiJ^lit^Iiccl ill tlic Appendix of ISK^. 'I'lio 'rabf-rnnclf 
< 'liiircli, and all the other clmrclies in Salem, even to 

"Mormon Church, 1842, Elder Snow," 

are exliibited in tabular views -which, up to the very date 
of the Sermon, are, as any one may see at a glance, most 
raitht'idly copied from thai s(i7iic A/>/)cii(/i.v ! — There is a 
sniirlc omission of a term, for which we can divine a- sig- 
Milirant reason in the mind of the copyist; and also one 
abbreviated variation, which may be a misprint, but very 
probably was used as a synonyme, by which Dr. Whita- 
ulcer is made to " re.s/^v«" at the Third Church in 1771, in- 
stead of " withdrawing," as stated in the original, 'i'hns 
■\ve have an entire mislalce, foimded upon an entire inven- 
tion or imagination. If any think highly of the conclu- 
siveness of an argimient of liistory, or the strength ot" con- 
firmation, from such a transcript, wnth such an almost ex- 
act coincidence to an iota, in errors and originalities, we 
shall not contend with them. AVc ourselves must admit, 
that, in all that we have read or heard, we have never 
found anything iJiofc decisive, historically and logically, 
against the claims of the Tabernacle. 

Perhaps we ought to except the remark upon Mr. Hunt- 
ington's Sermons, in the little " Catalogue of the Library 
of the First Church," — among divers other brief sugsestions, 
biographical or critical; and wdiich directly connects Dr. 
t^mcrson as a successor of Mr. Huntington, — just as they 
would seem to be, especially to a comparative stranger in 
Salem, — who, with the " Sermons" of that revered min- 
ister, whose iVagrant memory is so dear to us, should also 
have before him the title-page of the discourse at the fune- 
ral of Dr. Hopkins, or some kindred publication. This, 
therefore, may be of very great weight, as authority! If 
it should ever be quoted against us, we may think it wise 
to be silent, until we recover ourselves. 



But if we may be pardoned a little relief of episode, we 
wmII pass to another kind of historical evidence, that of ?/w- 
])uhJislicd manuscripts. We are acquainted with several 
different sketches or memorials of the churches and pas- 
tors of Salem ; which are (|uite as credible and valid, as if 
they had been issued from the press. There is the one, c. g. 
which, with the " Salem Directory," w\as under the eye of 
the gentleman, who drafted the order of procession on the 
•lih of .Inly. Its witness, Uke others that might be named, 
is true for the right. 



41 

We mast refer more particularly to that which we our- 
selves have, in the handwriting of Dr. Worcester, and 
Avhich was prepared, not long after the death of Dr. Hop- 
kins. Hpeakiug of the South Church, which he never al- 
lowed himself to call Third Church,— he says :— " That 
part of the church and congregation which separated from 
Dr. Whitalcer in 1774, purchased the x\ssembly House, and 
titted it up for a place of worship, and v.ot with 'perfect 
propriety assiuned the name of the Third Church.^'' Again 
he says, — '• When the separation took place, fourteen male 
members left the church, d^nd formed tJie church, over which 
Rev. Mr. Hopkins was ordained," etc. The reader will 
not overlook such terms, as "separated," " formed," and 
'• assumed." 

Those who are conversant with Dr. "Worcester's manner, 
need not be told, that '■'■ not with perfect propriety'^ means, 
that, in his judgment, there was an essential impropriety. 
Neither have we occasion to inquire if any one, living or de- 
ceased, is entitled to any higher regard, in his opinion upon 
the merits of the question before us. — No man in all New 
England had a more profound and enlarged understanding 
of the rights and usages of our churches. And so thorough- 
ly persuaded was he of the unsuitableness, the ecclesiasti- 
cal falsity of the title Third Church, as assumed by those 
who separated or seceded from Dr. Whitaker, that he 
even made a correction in the record of a missionary con- 
tribution, which had been sent as from the Third Church, — 
so that the public acknowledgment of it should be from the 
S'outh Church. 

And this he did, doubtless, under the constraint of the 
refined delicacy of his moral feelings and judgments ; — 
which made him keenly sensitive to all deviations from the 
strictest truth and correctness. In the hearing of those, 
who still survive, — he expressed himself in terms, neither 
equivocal nor very mild, as disallowing every particle of 
the claim of the South Church to the title of the Third 
Church; and as marvelling, that any vestige or shadow of 
such a pretension should be suffered by themselves to re- 
main. We speak advisedly. 

We have been reminded, however, that in the publication 
of the Sermon, etc., at the Installation of Mr. Cornelius in 
1SI9, — the Rev. Dr. Emerson, who gave the Right Hand 
of Fellowship, — is printed "as the pastor of the Third 
Church in Salem." And what does it prove?— Dr. Wor- 
cester could not have put that title there; and if he had seen 
a proof-sheet, he would have altered it. Mr. Cornelius had 
but just come to Salem, and if he had seen the title, would 
not iiave been likel v to ask any question concerning it. By 

6 



42 

vote of tlic church lie was directed to procure for the press 
a «opy of Dr. IJcechcr's .Sermon, J)r. Worcester's Charge, 
and Dr. Emerson's Rii:;ht Hand of Fellowship. Tlie print- 
ing was done at Andover ; — and it is not very probable, 
that tlie proof-sheets passed at all under his eye. 

Dr. Emerson may have forgotten the circumstance ; but 
we have no (lucstion, that, according to custom in such 
cases, he wrote his own title forliimself, at the head of the 
copy which he sent to the press. And in any event, the 
Tabernacle C'hurch are no more responsible for its appear- 
ance in the publication, than they are for the inscription, 
TnuiD Church, 1735, which "not with perfect propriety," 
has a place over the pulpit of the South Church. In no 
case whatever, is it known that the Tabernacle Church 
ever designed to acknowledge the claim of the Soutli 
Church, to the style and consideration of the Church 
of 1735. 

It is not impossible, that, in some instances, the name 
Third Church may have been used by members of tlie 
Tabernacle, when the South Church was meant. But 
never for one moment did any one of them imagine, that 
the church, called Third by themselves, had any claim to be 
considered the church of which Rev. Messrs. Fisk, Leavitt 
and Huntington were once pastors. And as " strange things 
to our ears" was the sound of " Third Church,-' at the be- 
ginning and end of a short communication in November 
last, in answer to one which, as usual, was addressed to the 
South Church, 

If the present, or the former pastor of the South Church, 
printed their names on the title-page of their sermons, as 
of the Third Church ; if letters of dismission have at times 
or always been made out in the same style ; if, though very 
ambiguously, as in the Sermon at the funeral of Dr. Hop- 
kins, it is implied that the South Church is the old Third 
Church ; and especially, if the whole claim is put forth 
unreservedly, as for tlie first time, in the Sermon of 1843; 
— it would be expected, that the church would, at least 
sometimes, be called by others the Third Church, and not 
unnaturally be " considered'^ by some, as " the Third Con- 
gregational Church in Salem." But this by no means 
proves that this church is the Third Church of 1735, or 
lias been so considered by the public. 

We should now be willing to submit the question to all 
the oldest inhabitants of Salem, and to all of middle age, 
who have been conversant with the history of the place. 
And we should feel quite safe in pledging ourselves, never a- 
gain to open our mouths or write a syllable upon the sub- 
ject, — if there can be found, out of the limits of the South 



43 

Church and Society, as many as ten persons in this whole 
community, of the classes specified, who ever thought or 
heard of more than two ministers, as the ministers of that 
Church and Society, until the Sermon of 1843 ! 

And none are more competent to decide such a question ; 
a question of fact, of observation, and not of imaginary 
"construction," or metaphysical abstraction. One living 
witness may be worth a whole library of compilations, as 
usually prepared. And if now the general impression in 
this city, be not most decidedly and assuredly, that the 
Rev. Dr. Hopkins was the only predecessor of Rev. Dr. 
Emerson, — then the writer can place no reliance whatev- 
er, in regard to any fact, upon the uniform and invaria- 
ble witness of his observation and experience, which is not 
very limited, — for more than an entire generation. Can 
any one point to the native inhabitant among us, — who, 
having reached the age of four score years, and having 
never been a member of either church or society, — has the 
least idea of the South Church, as being the Church, of 
which Rev. Messrs. Fisk, Leavitt and Huntington were 
once pastors, — to say nothing of Dr. Whitaker 7 

The descendants of Mr. Leavitt always speak of their 
ancestor, as one of the former pastors of the Tabernacle 
Church, and no more associate his memory with the 
Church of the South Society, than with that of the Crom- 
bie Street. 

The common or popular name of the Church, is not 
Thirds but iSouih Church. The Church is so called in 
public solemnities by the pastor of the church, as well as 
other pastors ; and almost invariably in printed documents. 
And in all letters missive to the Tabernacle, from church- 
es abroad, in which that church is mentioned, it always 
is the South Church, or Dr. Emerson's. And until 
1843, or until the occasion arose for the present discus- 
sion, — it may be questioned, Avhether twenty persons, un- 
der forty years of age, not connected with the South Soci- 
ety or the Tabernacle, could have told on the instant, 
which church in Salem is meant by Third Church ; so ob- 
solescent, if not obsolete, has the name really become. 

" Upon Mr. Fisk's dismission from the First Church," 
says Dr. Bentley, "another house of worship was raised, 
and it may be called the Third Church, though it refu- 
sed the name." There are circumstances in which a name 
is imposed by the community against the wishes of all 
who are specially interested. And if there be an obvious 
reason in " the fitness of things," it may ultimately, if not 
very soon, prevail over every other received or desired de- 
signation. Our brethren of the South Church, therefore, 



44 

slioiilj not l)c surprised, tliat tho remark lias so fwr bcni 
vviriliod jii their own liistory. W'c of the 'Pabenmcle hud 
au early experience, in full demonstration of its truth. 



CONCLUDIXC; HEM ARK 8. 

There is no power in a name or title to make a church 
"what it is not, as it respects tlic date of its beginning, or 
any of the rights, whicli belong to such an organization. 
Numerical terms, however, Jirsl, second, {liird.. etc., otight 
not to mislead us. As a part of the name or stylo ot' a 
])articiilar church, tliey should agree with events of histo- 
ry, in chronological order. 

In tiie settlement of New England, the terms first, sec- 
find, etc., denoted congregational churches invariahly. But 
as churches of other denominations grew and muliiplied. 
there was an obvious dilFiculty in prescrvini^ the truth nf 
history, according to the primary ])rinciple of designating 
the relative age of Churches. The dilRculty was increas- 
ed, by changes of boimdary lines. And Ave think it not 
milikely, that the necessary changes of mnnerical designa- 
tion, when "Salem Village"' and "Middle Precinct' be- 
came Danvers in 1757, may have had an influence in de- 
termining the name, by Avhich the North (.'hurch. 1772, 
lias ever been distinguished. ^Ve never heard of its liav- 
ing been called Fourth Church. 

It now so liappens, that all tlie congregational churches 
in the city, excepting the First, are known by other desig- 
nations, than numerical, — as East, Crombie Street, etc. 
And in popular usage, the Smith (-Inirch is just as much 
established as a distinctive and appropriate designation, as 
North (vhurch. "Whence originated the nnme. but from 
the South Meeting- House, just as the T<d)eniarlc Church 
•was so called from the name of the place of worship .' 
And what more appropriate name could our brethren take 
npon themselves, or with one consent recognize in all doc- 
uments, and upon every occasion? The inscription which 
may now be seen above the pulpit of their '■ holy and beau- 
tiful house,"' is, in our humble apprehension, as nnich out 
of place, as that of South CmiRrn 1775 — would l^e. if 
emblazoned over tlie entrance of the Tabernacle. 

It is no credit or lionor, as we conceive, to any individu- 
al or to the whole body, that the Tabernacle Churcli is 
entitled to be considered older than the South (.'iiurch. 



45 

And it would neitliGr comport with dignity nor upright- 
ness, to insist upon any claim of priority, from any imagin- 
ed advantage that merely flatters natural pride or self- 
complacency. But if there he any pleasure, or any profit 
in the distinction of earlier origin, then, of course, it should 
be enjoyed by those to whom it justly belongs. "Render 

TO ALL THEIR DUES.'' 

The truth of history should be paramount to all private 
wishes, traditionary prejudices, or favorite opinions. And 
the question ought now to be put at rest, that it may never 
again be the remotest occasion of collision or unpleasant 
feeling. 

We may be told, that such discrepancies, for example, as 
those upon which we have at last been compelled to ani- 
madvert, are of very little consequence. But is it so 7 
They may never have occasioned any loss of life, or the 
perpetration of any " iniquity to be punished by the judg- 
es." Still we have always been taught to consider it a 
very serious evil, that men should contradict each other. 
And we doubt if the evil be any less, if they are men of 
such character, and contradict each other so courteously 
or so undesignedly, that other people know not what to be- 
lieve as the truth. 

Confidence is the primal bond of society. And irvih in 
the statements of the historian, the annalist, the biogra- 
pher, the writer of any name or nature, — works of fiction 
or imagination excepted, — is justly accounted of no less 
importance, than truth as spoken from mouth to mouth, in 
affirmation or denial, whatever be the subject, the occasion, 
or the circumstances. Most laboriously, therefore, have 
some investigated and established the authenlic dates and 
connexions of events and transactions. They have thus 
made themselves eminent public benefactors. 

If our brethren of the South Church shall continue to 
style themselves in any of their documents, as if the Third 
Church, neither we nor the community can restrain them. 
But if they shall hereafter publish the Tabernacle Church, 
as but beginning to be in 1774,— a year when our years 
were already "forty, save one," — we shall be constrained 
to protest openly against the procedure, as a grievous in- 
fringement of historical verity. We shall not denounce 
them, nor disown them as brethren. Our friends and the 
public must judge between us. 

If, however, they should now pass a vote, by which they 
should discard all pretension to the name and considera- 
tion of the Third Church of 1735, they would do no more 
than was done by our mutual predecessors, as we may ac- 
count them, who, after twenty-seven years of strife, mag- 



46 

nniiiinonsly renonnrod the name of First Cliiircli. And if 
lici¥:erorth they should idontiiy their origin with the date 
of their organization and recognition by the Council of 
1775; — abjuring the absurd '•construction;" and if also 
they should call themselves the South Church, in all their 
future documents and proceedings, as tiiey are so generally, 
and have so long been called and considered ; — we very 
kindly and respectfully submit, whether it would not be a 
just and reasonable, a high-minded and fraternal rectifica- 
tion or emendation of their Records 7 

We ask for nothing, which impartial judges would not 
grant us. Strong as are our local attachments and our 
cherislied convictions, we do trust that in this matter of 
our dilference with our brethren,' we have an immeasura- 
bly higher regard for what is true and fi^^ht, independent 
and cxchu^ive of all personal feelings and considerations. 
It should certainly be so with us, if it be otherwise. We 
should be willing to know what is really trne, and act a- 
greeably to what in a christian judgment has the prepon- 
derating evidence of ri<xht. Rights, which are considered 
inalienable, like that of liberty, may be waived or relin- 
quished, in a choice of evils ; but a voluntary surrender of 
facts can be expected of none. 

We might have argued the question in much more de- 
tail. We have aimed to avoid " doubtful disputations," 
and to exhibit what is most needful to an enlightened and 
adequate perception of its essential merits. It admits of a 
very simple statement and elucidation. But it may be 
easily and undesignedly involved in many entanglements 
or bewildering intricacies. Utter confusion may be pro- 
duced, if, to " make the worse appear the better reason,'' 
any one should avail himself as he may, of apparent and 
real inconsistencies and contrarieties, in the true history of 
the deceptive and tortuous management of Dr. Whitaker, 
and the very peculiar and perplexing nature of the conten- 
tions and divisions in the Third Church, during his un- 
toward administration. 

Any subject may be made a question, and of course any 
question may be argued on both sides. Even a self-evident 
truth may be denied, and lie who defends it, having the 
burden of proof, may find that he has the hardest task as a 
reasoner. We have had some consciousness of this fact, 
in discussing the present question. While fully sensible, 
that, as in other cases, where a question involves matters 
of history, and where personal feelings are strongly enlist- 
ed, there is much that may be said, not only through error 
or mistake, but in all honesty and sincerity of confidence, 
by those who advocate tlie claims which are opposed to 



47 

ours; — we are yet most thoroughly persuaded, that it 
Avould be dilUcult to state an important point of grave and 
earnest discussion, where there is so litlle of xe^iWy disjni ta- 
ble matter^ in what a well-disciphned mind ordniarily re- 
gards, as pertaining to a just issue. But it is impossible to 
correct mistakes effectively, in a very brief space; and a 
single bold denial of a fact, or a line of confident error, 
may require many pages, or a whole volume, for a reply or 
an exposure. 

If we have violated any law or principle of fair discus- 
sion, — discussion for truth and not for triumph, — it has 
been through ignorance, inadvertence, or infirmity. We 
have spared no pains, to acquaint ourselves with every part 
of the subject, in all its relations and bearings. And if in 
any mode or degree, we have made any misstatement, we 
shall deeplj'" regret it; but shall have the consciousness of 
a most sincere, laborious, and unwearied exertion to be 
rigidly correct. 

We know full well, that some will never admit any fact, 
or recognize the cogency of any reasoning, which conflicts 
with their desires. With them " the small dust of the 
balance," when raised in their behalf, would seem to have 
substance and magnitude and grandeur, like " the muni- 
tions of rocks" in the Alps or the Andes; while the dem- 
onstrations of truth against them, though " strong as proofs 
of holy writ," and immoveable as "the everlasting hills," 
are but " trifles light as air." 

If such statements and arguments, as we have adduced, 
fail of producing conviction and persuasion, in the mind of 
any one, who has had any doubt upon the question, which 
we have now discussed, we should have but feeble hope of 
success Irom any additional considerations. Yet if occa- 
sion requires it, and Providence permits, we shall probably 
not be slow to resume our pen. Be this as it may, the dis- 
criminating will be able to perceive, where the true and the 
right are to be found. 

We stand ready to argue the question, and then put our 
Records, our pamphlets, our papers of every kind, into the 
hands of any competent committee of advice or adjudica- 
tion; and we will cheerfully abide the result of their de- 
liberations. We have no concealment of any thing. We 
would have recourse to no special pleading. It is upon the 
open and the broadest grounds of fact and of justice, of 
usage and of law, of sound logic and christian manliness, 
that we assert, and would ever vindicate the claims of the 
Tabernacle Church, to be considered the Third Church 
of 1735. 



48 

AVo very mncli fear, tliat some of our bretliren liavc at- 
trilluted to usinotives and leelings, which have no existence 
ill onr hearts. VN'e would fain hope, that no distrust of our 
brotherly kinclness may liiiider any one of them from be- 
ing "■ built up" " ill {.'hrist Jesus the Lord," "and stab- 
lislied in the faith, as they have been taught, abounding 
therein with thanksgiving." And whatever obstacles may 
embarrass their endeavors to love us freely and unfeigned- 
ly, '• in the bonds of the gospel," — it shall be our earnest de- 
sire, that they may all walk worthy of " the high calling," 
and more and more be "constrnined" by " the love," which 
" passcth knowledge." ^\'e shall rejoice in every token of 
their prosperity, and devoutly unite our prayer with theirs, 
that every blessing of the God of peace may rest upon their 
venerated and beloved pastor, upon each member of the 
church, and upon all in the congregation. 

"We sliall always remember, as we trust, that wc arc 
brethren, and as heretofore be ready to co-operate with all 
the churches of our common Master and Saviour, in works 
of faith and labors of love. And may we all find mercy 
of the Lord, in the day when the secrets of all hearts shall 
be revealed ! 

This vindication, it may be proper to add, lias been pre- 
pared in behalf of the Tabernacle Church; and appears in 
its present form, that it may be a convenient document of 
information and reference. AVhatever may be deficient, 
or objectionable, in its matter or its manner, is not to be 
ascribed to any defect in their claims, or to any unkindli- 
ness in their spirit or purposes. They are responsible only 
for the discretion, which they have so freely given — 



To their 

Unworfliy 

PASTOR. 
Makcii. isir. 



APPENDIX. 



A. Page 4. 

Nolhino was farther from our intentions, than a "stirring up of strife." 
A breach existed already, at least so far as we are concerned ; and we 
deemed it our dutjrto adopt immediate measures of conciliation, we 
prefer an intercourse of friendship, which is not formal or reserved, 
but most sincere, ingenuous and fervent. It certainly ought to be true 
of the brethren of such churches, that they could confer together "lace 
10 face, as a man speaketh unto his friend," upon any subject ot ditter- 
ence,— especially a question of history or of ecclesiastical order,— with- 
out endan^rering their amicable relations. If it was supposed, that, at 
the close o'f an interview, the respective parties would still be no less, 
if not more at variance, we are very sure, that our own impressions 
and hopes were quite the contrary. And if brethren, so circumstanced, 
should in like manner always decline such proposals, as we most cor- 
dially made,— it is obvious, 'that no serious disagreement or dimcuUy 
could ever be settled. Was it not a sufficient reason for compliance 
with our request, that whether we are right or wrong, it could not well 
be doubted, that we are honest in our convictions? 

B. Page 8. 

Under date of May 12, 1769, Dr. Whitaker accepted of the invita- 
tion of settlement irpon conditions,— among which were these, viz :— 
"If this Church will consent to be ruled by the minister and ruling 
elders, chosen by the church, or from the members of the church, by 
the church and society, if desired bv both; and the choice to be annu- 
al, if both church and society think'best: which ruling elders and min- 
ister shall stand in relation to one another, and to the church, in the 
following manner, viz r The minister to be the moderator of the Ses- 
sions or Eldership, and they not to make a Session nor to execute any 
church act without him,— agreeable to Cambridge Platform; which 
says, that in an organic church and right administration, all acts pro- 
ceed after the manner of a mixed administration, so that no church act 
can be consummated, without the consent of both." i u j 

2. " The ruling elders are the representatives of the brotherhood or 
Avhole church ; and are to take care of their privileges, and also to as- 
sist the minister in government as officers of Christ set in his Church 
for that purpose. 

3_ # # * * * ui recommend it to the church to proceed, as soon as 
may be, to agree upon a stated Council or Judicature, to whom all af- 
fairs may be carried, which cannot be 'peaceably settled by the bes- 
sions."— (This article had respect to difficulties, which might anse'be- 
tween the pastor and the " Sessions,"-for which a Congregational 
Council might be called, until the " stated Judicature" should be a- 
greed upon.") 



50 

In article 4lh, a similar provision was made for brethren and sisters 
generally. " Yet whenever a stated Judicature shall be fixed on by 
the church, all shall be restricted thereto." 

These with other conditions were accepted ; " the church, as an or- 
ganic body, reserving the liberty at any lime hereafter to alter any of 
ihe articles in the Dr.'s answer, etc., as il shall please God to give them 
liglit, from time to time." 

The foregoing, with otlier records of business at the same meeting, is 
thus attested: — "Read three times and voted. Benj. Ropes, Scribe." 

And the preamble reads thus : — "At a meeting of the Brethren of 
the Third Church of Christ in Salem, on adjournment at the meeting 
house, on Friday, May ITt, 17G9, the churcii having taken into consid- 
eration the Rev. Dr. Whitalcer's answer to their call to settle among 
them in the work of the ministry, — a/ler maturt ddiberalion, theij do 
unanimonsUj approve ofil." 

In a letter of April Gih, Dr. W. had said to John Saunders : "I will 
freely tell you, that I never was so perfectly sick of Congregational- 
ism or Independent Government, as I now am ; and if I come to 
Salem, I must make it a term of settlen)cnt to join the Presbytery. I 
give you leave to communicate this to friends, as you please." 

05^ Dr. Whinker was installed, July 2Slii,— and the first ruling 
elders, according to agreeement, were appointed Sept. 11. They were 
John Gardner, James Ruck, Jacob Ashton, Thorndike Procter, and 
Benjamin Ropes. 

With all this covert and actual presbyterianism, the church re- 
mained, for five years, so far congreirat'waal, as not to be accounted 
prcsbyterian, in the usual acceptation of the term. The Book of Rec- 
ords, kept by Dr. Whiiaker himself, had the same style as ever, with 
a few trivial exceptions. And so also to the end of his ministry, after as 
well as before the connexion with the Boston Presbytery, the Records 
are in the same style. 

The important fact of this connexion had no record at the time ; and 
there is no mention of it, until almost ten years afterwards; when Dr. 
Whitaker copied divers papers into the book, for his own defence, and by 
his own authority. In the regular series of recorded proceedings, the 
only notice whatever, which relates to the presbytery is, that the Doctor, 
May IS, 1774, read an address, which according to a petition of a num- 
ber of the brethren, he proposed to lay before the presbytery, the ensu- 
ing week. Even this is not in its chronological place, and it is doubt- 
ful whether it was there at all, until long after the date. Some of the 
papers surreptitiously added by Dr. W. are valuable. He designed 
to prove, that the church had been prcsbyterian, from his settlement. 

The truth of this extraordinary and anomalous state of things in the 
Third Church, was nearly approximated, we believe, if not I'ully reach- 
ed, in the Centennial Discourse at the Tabernacle, in 1S35. Without 
using the n^vmc prcsbi/lerian, it was Dr. Whitakcr's policy to break a- 
way from all congregational bonds, as fast and as far as he could. By 
his mode of settlement and general deportment, he alienated the minds 
of neighboring ministers and their churches; so that the Third Church 
was soon left in an insulated position of spurious independency. Oth- 
er churches regarded it, practically at least, as not iu congregational 
fellowship. 

Yet was the church congrigallonal enough to allow Dr. Whitaker to 
propose to Mr. Cleaveland a plan for a Consociation of Churches, as in 
Connecticut; which, of course, implied that the Third Church was not 
yet strictly prcsbj/tcrinn. On the whole, therefore, although a Council 
in Feb. 1781, resolved tliat the church was congregational, when Dr. 
Whitaker took charge of it in 1709, — it would be more nearly the truth 



51 

„ sny, .hal a was a C..er.gational-Pr.slyUrian-irkitakenz^ brde- 

pendency. , i i • »„v,r nf Dr Whitaker's career ia Sa- 

^ Ami in view of the whole '^'^^ory of Dr WhUaker ^^^^^^ ^^ 

lem, we feel very safe m say.ng ^^at reqmres « ^^ ^^ 

patient study, so to understand he affair, ot ^^e i n ^^^„,„ts, 

speak with the persuas.on ot clearness i^_'^J^^'^f^J^^^',,„,i,,ent, as to 
w'h.ch are perfectly true, m^y seem at f -t ^o ^J -y^^ .^ ^^^ ^ 

be absolutely ificTed'ble W^h^J ^^^^^f^^ ^,„,e in our correspondence 
investigations repeatedly. \v e *=^w i i^^nner in which they 

with our brethren of the So"^l^ C'^^^^^Vr^n^ously^^^^^^ ^o^^^ '•^- 

verv honestly, as we doubt not but errone^f J 1 ^-^^ ,,,hich 

marls of ours,-which appeared YZ^^'^^e^umli be held primarily, if 
the real history of the church, ^n^ no J^'/^^J^j; ""^ ^^^^ ,Uplete and 
not wholly accountable ^^^ ^Jf,^'^;^^"^^ h.'^'^uth \s stranger thaa 
singular verilication of the adage,— the 

fiction." „ „f o imnnscriot or pamphlet, and 

,^z^:i:^^ rfiSy:wMcrpSpr.he .% .e. page 

or paragraph will utterly contradict. 



C. Paee 9. 



The n^ajority were ^f ^^J? ^ ^^^ dSi' Jli^l^^ll^'^ -S^-^ 
Dr. W. doubtless feared a failure in his esi n_ , .^.b^ery should 

,.en" should have ful know edge of heiBO ^^^^^^^^^ \h,/efore, of 
be fully apprized of the s^^^^^.^. ^'^'/JS^ with delib- 

takin- a vote of the brethren, after due ^^ns merau , 
Sate understanding of the change P^^P^^^^; J^^-^^^^^t \o? petition 
ioritv, in a more or less P^-^f^"?-;"; j, '^r frTd r^^ watch and 
{hat "he would take measures to b"ng ^^e ^^^"y^^^^ proceedings are 
care of the Boston Presbytery. At PP- 2S and ^, P 

^'Tttetition was dated Nov. 27, 1773 ;-but was not u^edun,! May 
foSwiSg. At a church meeting^ wl^nvj^^^^^^^^ foTego'i^g^Note. 

present. Dr. W. read the Paper,J^emionea ' q^ ^,^^ g^b- 

hr^t:^^^^ ^ h^^^iS;::aSi Sl^rmed o^ectors, that 
thev' could appear at Palmer and urge them _ ^^^^ ^ ^^^^ 

This was obviously an .^^^f.^^^;. ^ .v.^^u'st^s really connected 
consent of the majority. And ^he chu'c jas ju t ) ^^^ 

with the presbytery, as If a f™^^^ of a State to our 

protracted debate. There lias been ^^^^i ,^^ j^^^^er, by 

'^;^:ZS^^'^^^^^^^ hy Treaty, was made sure by 

^^:^;:;iU^S^r^acenainptpero^ 

ty,-and say : "Whereas ^^V^e greatest nun^b^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ 

tfie paper, have ^'^hf^^'buf one for mTy months, without giving 
more than a year, and all but one lor ray ^^^^^^ ^ 

any reason to this church ^\^- ^ndwliere ,,!eaK-ness of this 

conduct of our brethren, etc., and lament ai^o ^ disorders, 

church, which renders them in apable ^^^0^2^^^^^^ ^^^^j^ ^„^ ,,,, 
while alone and unconnec ed ™ j^°%7^ ^q^,^ us their aid to set- 
of their sister churches, ^^ho.may be ready to aflom u ^^^^^^ 

tie difficulties among us, which are too gi eat tor u , as p ^^^.^ 

pear to us to be ; and as the plan agreed upon b ween y^^^ ^^^ ^^.^ 

b^^ i^^:!^£S!^^^ dSreVrtS 3om with us tn applytn. 



52 

«o the presbytery in tliis province, and to pray them lo lake this 
CnyRcit uniler tlieir watcli and care, and rereive us as of llieir body ; 
and that you with the Elders draw up an Address, and present it to said 
pr<'shvtery, as soon as may be, lor llie above purpose," &c. Dr. 
Whitaker's "Address" was dated May 18, 1771. 

For the ^* persnnar' nature of llie controversy with Dr. Whitaker, 
take as an example the following letter. It was written by the late 
Hon. Timothy Pickering — the same who officiated when the Dr. was 
inducted into office. 
" To the Rev. Dr. Whitaker, 

SiK — Some proposals in your liand-wriling are presented to us the 
aggrieved brelhrei\ of your Church, which senn to import an intentional 
remedy, or palliate the mischiefs which we think are and will be occa- 
sioned by the plan of government, you wilij fair words and goodly 
speeches persuaded us to adopt ; but unhappily they only seem to do 
tills. For not to remark upon the absurdity of your making two 
churches of one, which is nevertheless to continue to be but one ; what 
will signify the ordinary acts of the brotherhood, if the ordinary execu- 
tive officer refuses to execute them ? 

And by your proposals you are to be at liberty to do this or not, as 
you think best. In what docs this diller from an effectual negative? 
Judge, Doctor, so much arlilice appears in these projjosals, we cannot 
bat consider them a fresh attempt to impose on our too credulous 
simplicity. 

At the time we accepted your plan of Church Government, we must 
by our vote have thought ourselves at liberty to alter it, if found mis- 
chievous or inconsistent. The reservation in that vote, must otherwise 
be most trilling and impertinent. 

But Doctor, if your proposals above mentioned, to us appeared candid 
and ingenuous ; if they contained any valuable concessions ; nay, if 
you were to consent to erase from its very fomrdations, your wiiole 
system of church government; what would it avail? Would the 
proud, the arrogant, the haughty man, hereby be rendered humble? or 
the violent and overbearing be inspired with the mild and gentle spirit 
of the Gospel? and all the difficulties in your Church and Society be 
removed ? 

Nevertheless, we would not refuse to reform one because we cannot 
reform every evil. And your church government we account a great 
one; and the more grievous, because we think you have essentially 
departed from the sjiirit of it, and your professed intention in setting it 
up. We therefore earnestly desire to have it totally demolished; and 
that this Church may return and rest upon the solid basis ot pure and 
unmixed Congregationalism. 

We are, Rev. Sir, your aggrieved brethren, 

Signed, Addison Richardson, James Nichols, Timothy Pickering, jr., 
Robert Peele, Daniel Cheever, Stephen Abbot, John Waters, Thorndike 
Procter, Samuel Symonds, Thomas Needham, Benjamin Ropes, John 
Saunders, Samuel Very, John Gardner. 

November ISth, 1773." 

For other matters of the " personal" controversy, see Salem Gazette 
for 1774. 

DISMISSION. 

" The aggrieved brethren" were dismissed by the Presbytery, bcraiise 

Dr. W. and the Church had brought the difficulties before the body, 

and submitted the whole for action, according to ])resbyterian usage. 

The minute of Sept. IG, 1774, at Salem, adverts to the refusal of the 



53 

brethren to unite with Dr. \V. in " a decisive Council" of Congrcga- 
tionalists and Presbyterians equally,— "on reasonable terms, as the 
Presbytery think;"— and then says,— "and as the said persons do 
utterly disclaim the presbyterian church government, it is unanimously 
agreed, that they be dismissed from the presbyterian church under Dr. 
Whitaker's pastoral care," kc. 

"Resolved, That as there is a number of female members, who have 
not been adverted to in the preceding minute,— who have absented 
themselves from the Church, that if they see fit to return any time 
before next Jan. 1775, they be received; if not to be dismissed also." 

The brethren and sisters were, as we suppose, dismissed ivdhout 
censure, although nothing is said upon the point ;— and the intention 
was, doubtless, to give them an opportunity of forming new ecclesias- 
tical relations, although Dr. W. evidently had no idea of their forming 
a new Church, and much less ever assuming to be the old Third Church 
of 1735. Hence he Avas violently opposed to the doings of the Council 
of Feb. 1775 ;— and even claimed some right to " the fourteen breth- 
ren" as yet belonging to his Church. He might in a sense so consider 
them, until they had been recognized as members of some other 
church. But it is no injustice to say, that he scrupled not to employ 
any argument or device, to accomplish his personal ends. What he 
said and what he wrote, must be taken with many grains of allowance, 
except so far as known facts or circumstances confirm his statements 
or professions.— (On p. 19, June, 1774, should be May, 1774.) 

D. Page 21. 

"Dec. 6, 1774.- Voted, That whereas Mr. Benj. Ropes was desired 
by the Session of this Church, Nov. 26, 1770, to take the Church money 
into his hands, and settle the Church accounts ; and as the Church 
know not how these accounts stand; the Church now desire the 
deacons to wait on said Ropes, and settle the Church accounts with 
him, and receive the money from him into their keeping : and also to 
wait on Mr. Richard Lang, and know of him what money is in his 
hands, belonging to the Church, which he may have received since he 
provided for the tables, and to receive what he may have. Also that 
the deacons wait on Mrs. Lee, and lake an account of the plate helongivg 
to the Church vow in her keepinpr. 

"April 9, 1775.— Voted, That the two deacons be desired to waiton 
the widow Elizabeth Lee, and demand the plate in her keeping belonging 
to this Church ; and also one hundred pounds, old tenor, and that they 
give her an indemnification, if she shall desire it." This was about 
Iwo months after the Council, which organized " the fourteen brethren." 
What can be plainer, than that these last could not retain any part of 
the property of the Third Church ? 

E. Page 22. 

We mean by "demand" what is meant in the preceding Note.— 
Compare also a vote, "April 5, 1784.- Voted, That Samuel Jones, 
Wm. Safford, and Wm. Gray, 4th, (the Committee appointed to tran- 
sact the business of the Church), be empowered to make a demand of 
the plate belonging to this Church, now in possession of Dr. Whitaker; 
and to take such measures towards recovering the same, as they shall 
think best." , . -n 

No such demand as this, was ever known to have been made by Kev, 
Mr. Hopkins' Church. If it had been, however, it would not have 
proved, that the members bad a legal title to the " plate" and other 
"interest." 



54 

Orl. I'l. 17SS, afirr vntin:; to comply witli tlio rcf|Uost for altcndance 
nl tilt installation of Mr. Spaulclinp:, ilie Soiitli Clmrcli voted, to ap- 
point a (.'oinmiltoc " to divide llip ])lute and otiicr interest, belonging 
to tiiis and the Tahernacle Ciiurch." 

Messrs. Jones, Gray and Safibrd, were tlie standinfl; business Com- 
mittee of llie Tabernacle (Miurcb— appointed tlie previous March 1st. 
They, liowever, had not power lo divide the plate, and hence a meeting 
of the Church was immediately called. It is well remembered by one 
still amoniT us, how the subject was introduced and considered Oct. 
20th. It was suggested, that as the First Church bad divided the 
plate with them, so they ought to divide with their brethren. It was in 
itself very reasonable. And as an expedient for peace and fellowship, 
it was highly desirable to gratify their brethren of Rev. Mr. Hopkins's 
Church. Hence it wai 

Voted, Oct. 20, 1785, at a meeting of the Church at the house of 
Mr. Wm. Sallbrd, — "That they do consent and agree, that the plate 
jointly belonging lo this Church and Rev. Mr. Hopkins's Cburcli, with 
all other interest thereunto belonging, be equally divided between 
them; they, Mr. Hopkins' Church, paying one half of all expense and 
charge, which has or may arise from the same." 

This is the only vote of the Church on the subject, and the only 
notice in the regular coarse of record. If there could be any question, 
in respect to the word " interest," we would cite several other votes of 
previous years, — as, e. g. "Dec. G, 1774 — Voted, That two deacons be 
chosen in the room of deacons Ruck and Pickering, to take cart oj the 
church interest, and to perform the other duties of deacons." 

In the present case " interest " appears to have meant little or 
nothing else than "p/rrfe." But that the " interest" was all penuiiary, 
is obvious from the simple fact, that it was to be ^' cqualli/ divided,''^ 
at equal expense. Most certainly, neither name nor Records could 
have been in mind. The idea would be absurd. 

The expression "jointly belonging, &c." exactly corresponded with 
that in the vote of the other Church, the week previous ; and is a most 
decisive proof of the disposition to conciliate those brethren. The 
"expense" related particularly to the " melting up" of the "christen- 
ing basin." 

It may now be of some consequence to notice very distinctly, thai 
this " settlement" was but in part like that in 1762, when committees 
not only divided the plate and all other property, — but the question of 
name and style was of specific instruction and consideration. We 
have a full record of the doines, which closes thus: — "Aug. 3, 1762, 
we gave them a discharge in full of all demands, and reliiujvished to them 
the name of First Church. Test. Richard Lee, Clerk." 

We happen to have in our book of Records, though not as the busi- 
ness of the church, nor in any part of the regular series of such record, 
a copy of the private "agreement" between the two committees, ac- 
cording to the votes of Oct. 15, and Oct. 20 ; — which appear to have 
been all the votes, that were passed by the two churches respectively. 
The copy was made in 1833, with some other old papers on file ; but 
■was inserted in such a place, that the present pastor of the church had 
never seen it, and never heard of it, until it was discovered by some of 
our brethren of the South Church, while inspecting the Records at 
large. They misunderstood it entirely; and even interpreted it, as if 
all questions which had been in controversy were at that time consid- 
ered and "settled."' Let it speak for itself : 

•' We the subscribers, a Committee chosen by the Third and Taber- 
nacle Churches in Salem, to settle the interest lelnn^inp; to snid churches, 
have this lUih day of Dec. 1785, met at Mr. William SallorU's and 



55 

made an equal division of all said plate, being ten pieces, exclusive 
of the basin, in the whole; and have marked each piece belonging to 
the 3d Salem, in the following manner, viz. (Third Church in Salem) ; 
also have marked each piece belonging to the Tabernacle Church, as 
follows, viz. Tabernacle Church in Salem. 

"And it is agreed by each party, that the whole of said plate shall 
be kept together for the mutual benefit of each church. 

" N. B. The christening basin being so large, the Committee agree 
that it should be melted up, and that two basins be made of the same, 
to accommodate both churches, John Saunders, Richard Lang, 
Stephen Cook, Ed. Norris, Samuel Jones, William Gray, 4th, William 
Saflbrd." 

As the majority of the joint committee were of the other church, and 
the chairman also, the style of the document could be framed to suit 
their own wishes. But there is not the least reason to suppose, that it 
was intended for any other purpose, than what is obvious on the face 
of it. The " plate" was the •' interest" to be '' settled," and to " settle 
the interest" was to " make an equal division of all said plate." 

The intended use of the plate explains the maikiva;, which was alto- 
gether incidental, and in which each committee would act at discretion, 
— neither prescribing for the other. Without any compromise or con- 
cession, expressed or implied, the Tabernacle committee very naturally 
marked their own plate by a name, which, for several years, had beea 
their most common designation ; leaving the brethren of the other 
church to mark theirs, as they saw fit, which, of course as the prophets 
do not live forever, would not be by the name of their pastor. And a 
similar indulgence or acquiescence would he granted at the present 
day, in courtesy, or to avoid contention, — when an important end was 
to be gained in a joint operation ; while at the same time there would 
be an inward judgment as to the propriety of the style adopted. 

If the committee had given any other consent to the marking " Third 
Church," than that of courtesy, in signing the " agreement," they 
would have done it as individuals, and not by authority of the church. 
But neither the church nor the committee had any more thought of ac- 
knowledging Mr. Hopkins's church as the church of 1735, than they 
had of " dividing" both the name and the Records, as they divided the 
"christening basin." And to divide the Records, we may add, in any 
year of Dr. W.'s ministry, e.g. 1773-74, would be just as feasible and 
sagacious an operation, as to " melt up" the name Thikd, so that the 
two churches might have an equal portion, each paying half the ex- 
pense. 

If the committee of the South Church had proposed to mark their 
plate Thikd Church, 1735, it would have been a very different case. 
In course of the next year, the name Tabernacle appears to have dis- 
placed entirely the other names, as Thd. Church, Dr. Whitaker's Church, 
Church at the Tabernacle, etc. But this had no connexion with " the 
plate,'' but rather with the influence of the new minister, combining 
with the popular usage, and the obvious desirableness of uniformity. 
And any reasoning, therefore, from the terms " interest," (not interests,) 
" settle," etc., against the claims of the church, as being the true organ- 
ization of 1735, — must be a mere verbal illusion. Men do not always 
know how they are deceived by words, and sometimes reason in sober- 
ness, when their logic is like some of the old syllogisms ; such as that 
by which you could prove the affinity and league of every creature that 
hath wings, in opposition to the curtains of the night. Whether grave- 
ly or not, we shall not decide, it was argued : — 

"Whatever is light is opposed to darkness : 

" Feathers are light ; 
" Therefore, they are opposed to darkness." 

L#FC. 



56 

The monil)rvs of ilie Tabornacle Church oomimictl to call the other 
church, ^Vr. Ilupkiiis's Church, until the name South Church became so 
coiiAtiou. — In respect to all the transactions, concerninij the plate, we 
have a special advantage. One of our committee has lived to the lime 
of this discussion. .M)out two nionlhs previous to his sudden illness 
and death, and when his tiiiiid was in remarkable vigor, we thought 
proper to inquire of Jiim, as follows : Q. Deac. S. do you recollect a- 
boui dividing the plaie with the S. Church { A. Oh yes, we divided 
the plate. Q. Was anythinfj said or done, in regard to the name Third 
ciiurch. by which it was yielded up? A. (Looking very much sur- 
prised,) .Yot that I l.now of. I do not recollect anvsuch thing. Oh no. 
We never gave up our right to the title of the Third Church ; though 
our people called themselves the Tabernacle Church. How rould we? 
Why, there would have been noprnpr{iti/'\n such a thing. Certainly not. 
We gave them the plate for equihj, — you know. Besides, we wanted 
peace and friendship. They never could have had it, you know, in law. 
The law nivtr would have given it to them, — never in the world. Q. 
But it is now said, that when the plate was divided, all questions about 
the name were settled. A. h it possible i How can they say so ? I am 
very much surprised. I am very sorry. Well, it must be those, then, 
that know nothing nhotit it. I am sure it never was so. Q. How then 
came the name Third Church to be mentioned in the "settlement," as 
the mark on tlie plate of the Church of Mr. Hopkins? A. Wliy, I 
don't know as I remember about that particularly. I don't recollect 
about the plate being marked. It may have been. But I suppose 
Mr. Hopkins's Church would have theirs so marked. We were very 
much depressed, and we wanted peace and friendship. * * But I know 
we never gave up our rights as Third Church, That I know per- 
fectly. Why, pray, tf>/io iai'c //le Records? Have they? I know that 
in Dr. Whitaker's time, they used to pretend to be the Old Church. 
But they never had any claim ; not the hast in the icorlJ .'" 

We have another venerable witness, who also w\as then an active 
member of the church, and who most emphatically confirms this testi- 
mony. Both were then in the fullest vigor of early manhood, when 
things of deep interest make indelible impressions.— Add now the in- 
disputable fact, that from the division of the plate, no less than before, 
the members of the Tabernacle Church have ever considered their 
church, as did Dr. Worcester in his profoundest and sincerest judgment, 
none other than the legitimate, the real Third Church ia Salem, or the 
Church of 1735. 

The legal gentleman allud?d to at the bottom of p. 22, was the Hon. 
Mr. Saltonstall. The late Hon. John Pickering expressed the same 
opinion; which is the more worthy of notice, because his father was 
so prominent among " the fourteen brethren" 

Note F. p. 29. See Note C. Note G. p. 29. We must omit 

what we purposed to add; as also in subsequent notes, Note H. p. 

;^0. After Mr. Spaulding's settlement, the society soon recovered its 
ascendant influence. Note I. p. 30. The Result, with a few com- 
ments, we should insert here, if the space had not been preoccupied. — 

Note J. The presbytery and the procedure were alike Dr. W. Note 

K. p. 31. At p. yS, it might be understood, that prrshj/lcriauism disaf- 
fected the minority. It was in some cases of discipline, that the Dr. 
alienated them by his arbitrary and obstinate will. The disaffection 
would probably have been just the same, under a pure Congregational- 
ism, if he had claimed the right, as afterwards did Mr. Spaulding, to 
««g-a/ifc the voles of the church. Note L. See letter in Note C. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 110 644 2 



Y^^ 




»/ 









w4:A:-i., 



